http://www.physorg.com/news107861978.html
Read between the lines, they are trying to shift the costs of sustaining HIV patients from the public health care sector to the private one and increasing the costs of private healthcare policies. The costs of meds for a lot of these people is picked up on the public dime and shifting this to the private sector will increase your costs for health care insurance
We have a right for a company to sell us a service... and not refuse us this service... wether we want or not... wether it is a good business decision for the company or not...
I'm sorry, what?
The questions I have for anyone who supports universal healther care:
1) Do you trust the Gov't?
2) Do you trust the Gov't to have your best interests at heart?
3) Do you think the Gov't can make a better decision about your well-being than you can?
4) Why do you support Socialized Medicine?
I'm sorry, what?
The questions I have for anyone who supports universal healther care:
1) Do you trust the Gov't?
2) Do you trust the Gov't to have your best interests at heart?
3) Do you think the Gov't can make a better decision about your well-being than you can?
4) Why do you support Socialized Medicine?
Ok,
Here's why 'our' system is broken:
Person *A* who has "Premium" health care coverage sees the DR. with symptoms of a severe chest cold.
Person *B* who has little or no health coverage sees the DR. with symptoms of a severe chest cold.
What will happen next?
Person *A* will get a full run of *various* chosen *tests* (mostly depending on what tests the Insurance company will pay for, and if the symptoms fall within *testing guidelines* -why not?!) .....to diagnose the "illness".
This is why the receptionists' first question is always: "What Insurance do you have?".
Person *B* Has little or no health coverage and sees the same Dr. for the same problem. Does patient *B* get the same tests performed as patient *A*? I don't think so.
So, patient *B* is given 'a run of the mill' or 'general' (Or what drug salesman pleased or pushed him the most- all around- "cure-all") Antibiotic.
So, Patient *A* who was properly tested and successfully diagnosed with "walking pneumonia" gets over it and lives to see another birthday.
Patient *B* gets a high fever and dies within only a few days of admittance into the emergency room.
So take your "idiotic government conspiracy theory trip" and WAKE UP!.
If Capitalism and Socialism doesn't work at least at 85% efficiency, (for health care) then we need to go back to the blackboard, and think of another way.
MMMMMkay?
Here's why 'our' system is broken:
Person *A* who has "Premium" health care coverage sees the DR. with symptoms of a severe chest cold.
Person *B* who has little or no health coverage sees the DR. with symptoms of a severe chest cold.
What will happen next?
Person *A* will get a full run of *various* chosen *tests* (mostly depending on what tests the Insurance company will pay for, and if the symptoms fall within *testing guidelines* -why not?!) .....to diagnose the "illness".
This is why the receptionists' first question is always: "What Insurance do you have?".
Person *B* Has little or no health coverage and sees the same Dr. for the same problem. Does patient *B* get the same tests performed as patient *A*? I don't think so.
So, patient *B* is given 'a run of the mill' or 'general' (Or what drug salesman pleased or pushed him the most- all around- "cure-all") Antibiotic.
So, Patient *A* who was properly tested and successfully diagnosed with "walking pneumonia" gets over it and lives to see another birthday.
Patient *B* gets a high fever and dies within only a few days of admittance into the emergency room.
So take your "idiotic government conspiracy theory trip" and WAKE UP!.
If Capitalism and Socialism doesn't work at least at 85% efficiency, (for health care) then we need to go back to the blackboard, and think of another way.
MMMMMkay?
QUOTE (Reaper6971+Sep 2 2007, 10:34 PM)
We have a right for a company to sell us a service... and not refuse us this service... wether we want or not... wether it is a good business decision for the company or not...
I'm sorry, what?
Medical care should not be a matter of good business decisions. It's a matter of whether people live or die. In a civilized society, life is valued above profit. Given what you wrote, I don't suppose you want to live in a civilized society.
1) Do you trust the Gov't?
No, which is why any government official (such as George Bush or Alberto Gonzales) tells me to "just trust us", I'm rather inclined to give them the finger.
But I trust for-profit companies even less. At least government bureaucrats can be controlled through adversarial arrangements where each agency's abuses are checked by another agency, and where the press is there at least in theory to stir up trouble (at least until it becomes too monolithic, corporatist, and entertainment-oriented and profit-driven to pursue rigorous investigative journalism any longer...) In the business world, auditing is overhead, secrecy is par for the course, whereas checks and balances go against executive efficiency and damage competitiveness. Which is why you should run in terror the next time some presidential candidate tells you they'd run the country like a CEO runs a corporation.
But perhaps you were under the illusion that corporate bureaucrats are better than government ones? I'd love to hear the reasons why you think corporate bean counters, pencil pushers, politicians, and ladder climbers are somehow a fundamentally different (and better) sort of human being, than people who at least start out with the premise of serving the public as opposed to making a career.
No, which is why any government official (such as George Bush or Alberto Gonzales) tells me to "just trust us", I'm rather inclined to give them the finger.
But I trust for-profit companies even less. At least government bureaucrats can be controlled through adversarial arrangements where each agency's abuses are checked by another agency, and where the press is there at least in theory to stir up trouble (at least until it becomes too monolithic, corporatist, and entertainment-oriented and profit-driven to pursue rigorous investigative journalism any longer...) In the business world, auditing is overhead, secrecy is par for the course, whereas checks and balances go against executive efficiency and damage competitiveness. Which is why you should run in terror the next time some presidential candidate tells you they'd run the country like a CEO runs a corporation.
But perhaps you were under the illusion that corporate bureaucrats are better than government ones? I'd love to hear the reasons why you think corporate bean counters, pencil pushers, politicians, and ladder climbers are somehow a fundamentally different (and better) sort of human being, than people who at least start out with the premise of serving the public as opposed to making a career.
2) Do you trust the Gov't to have your best interests at heart?
LMAO
Do you think for-profit enterprises have YOUR best interests at heart??
I think your chief problem is that you think the profit motive is compatible with compassion and altruism. You were probably one of the fools who bought into the sucker-lure of "compassionate conservatism"....
3) Do you think the Gov't can make a better decision about your well-being than you can?
Very few of us are EDUCATED and COMPETENT enough to make good decisions about our own health care: most of us are NOT doctors, and not even nurses. Many of us are children, or seniors, or immigrants, who have neither the knowledge nor the ability to pursue or manage their own health care. Most of us don't even have college degrees, and quite a few among us never even finished high school, and can hardly read at a sixth grade level.
I would leave the decisions about my health to professionals, rather than trying to pretend as if I was one myself. And personally, I can think of better things to do with my time, than trying to sift through the tons of medical spam we're all swimming in. And I'd rather have my health care dollars go to research or better service, rather than toward TV commercials and promotional campaigns with free samples to doctors.
Very few of us are EDUCATED and COMPETENT enough to make good decisions about our own health care: most of us are NOT doctors, and not even nurses. Many of us are children, or seniors, or immigrants, who have neither the knowledge nor the ability to pursue or manage their own health care. Most of us don't even have college degrees, and quite a few among us never even finished high school, and can hardly read at a sixth grade level.
I would leave the decisions about my health to professionals, rather than trying to pretend as if I was one myself. And personally, I can think of better things to do with my time, than trying to sift through the tons of medical spam we're all swimming in. And I'd rather have my health care dollars go to research or better service, rather than toward TV commercials and promotional campaigns with free samples to doctors.
4) Why do you support Socialized Medicine?
Because it's a hell of a lot better than NO medicine for all but the wealthy, which is what YOU support. Do you know what is the dream world of corporate health care? It's where you pay through your nose for "insurance", but receive absolutely no services in return. 100% profit margins!!
I'm sorry, what?
Medical care should not be a matter of good business decisions. It's a matter of whether people live or die. In a civilized society, life is valued above profit. Given what you wrote, I don't suppose you want to live in a civilized society.
QUOTE
1) Do you trust the Gov't?
No, which is why any government official (such as George Bush or Alberto Gonzales) tells me to "just trust us", I'm rather inclined to give them the finger.
But I trust for-profit companies even less. At least government bureaucrats can be controlled through adversarial arrangements where each agency's abuses are checked by another agency, and where the press is there at least in theory to stir up trouble (at least until it becomes too monolithic, corporatist, and entertainment-oriented and profit-driven to pursue rigorous investigative journalism any longer...) In the business world, auditing is overhead, secrecy is par for the course, whereas checks and balances go against executive efficiency and damage competitiveness. Which is why you should run in terror the next time some presidential candidate tells you they'd run the country like a CEO runs a corporation.
But perhaps you were under the illusion that corporate bureaucrats are better than government ones? I'd love to hear the reasons why you think corporate bean counters, pencil pushers, politicians, and ladder climbers are somehow a fundamentally different (and better) sort of human being, than people who at least start out with the premise of serving the public as opposed to making a career.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
1) Do you trust the Gov't? |
No, which is why any government official (such as George Bush or Alberto Gonzales) tells me to "just trust us", I'm rather inclined to give them the finger.
But I trust for-profit companies even less. At least government bureaucrats can be controlled through adversarial arrangements where each agency's abuses are checked by another agency, and where the press is there at least in theory to stir up trouble (at least until it becomes too monolithic, corporatist, and entertainment-oriented and profit-driven to pursue rigorous investigative journalism any longer...) In the business world, auditing is overhead, secrecy is par for the course, whereas checks and balances go against executive efficiency and damage competitiveness. Which is why you should run in terror the next time some presidential candidate tells you they'd run the country like a CEO runs a corporation.
But perhaps you were under the illusion that corporate bureaucrats are better than government ones? I'd love to hear the reasons why you think corporate bean counters, pencil pushers, politicians, and ladder climbers are somehow a fundamentally different (and better) sort of human being, than people who at least start out with the premise of serving the public as opposed to making a career.
2) Do you trust the Gov't to have your best interests at heart?
LMAO
Do you think for-profit enterprises have YOUR best interests at heart??
I think your chief problem is that you think the profit motive is compatible with compassion and altruism. You were probably one of the fools who bought into the sucker-lure of "compassionate conservatism"....
QUOTE
3) Do you think the Gov't can make a better decision about your well-being than you can?
Very few of us are EDUCATED and COMPETENT enough to make good decisions about our own health care: most of us are NOT doctors, and not even nurses. Many of us are children, or seniors, or immigrants, who have neither the knowledge nor the ability to pursue or manage their own health care. Most of us don't even have college degrees, and quite a few among us never even finished high school, and can hardly read at a sixth grade level.
I would leave the decisions about my health to professionals, rather than trying to pretend as if I was one myself. And personally, I can think of better things to do with my time, than trying to sift through the tons of medical spam we're all swimming in. And I'd rather have my health care dollars go to research or better service, rather than toward TV commercials and promotional campaigns with free samples to doctors.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
3) Do you think the Gov't can make a better decision about your well-being than you can? |
Very few of us are EDUCATED and COMPETENT enough to make good decisions about our own health care: most of us are NOT doctors, and not even nurses. Many of us are children, or seniors, or immigrants, who have neither the knowledge nor the ability to pursue or manage their own health care. Most of us don't even have college degrees, and quite a few among us never even finished high school, and can hardly read at a sixth grade level.
I would leave the decisions about my health to professionals, rather than trying to pretend as if I was one myself. And personally, I can think of better things to do with my time, than trying to sift through the tons of medical spam we're all swimming in. And I'd rather have my health care dollars go to research or better service, rather than toward TV commercials and promotional campaigns with free samples to doctors.
4) Why do you support Socialized Medicine?
Because it's a hell of a lot better than NO medicine for all but the wealthy, which is what YOU support. Do you know what is the dream world of corporate health care? It's where you pay through your nose for "insurance", but receive absolutely no services in return. 100% profit margins!!
The problem I have with the system is that the profit lies in treatment and not in cure. The drug companies have to make profits and the money is in long term use of medication that treat symptoms not one time cures. The healthcare system must continuously treat sick people to profit. There is no financial incentive for wellness. If the financial incentive could be reversed I believe we'd have much healthier people.
Wow, the socialized medicine topic always seems to flush out the concerned liberal know-it-alls. Why not extend the distrust of Bush and Gonzales to include such notable liars as Reid, Kennedy, and the Clintons?
Most Americans that are willing to accept an education and work hard are capable of buying health insurance. As for those that do not fit into this category (i.e. welfare scammers, illegal immigrants, etc...), the flaming leftists should voluntarily pick up their health care tab and not force it down the throat of all taxpayers. Why should I suffer because the liberal cannot separate emotion from financial sensibility?
Most Americans that are willing to accept an education and work hard are capable of buying health insurance. As for those that do not fit into this category (i.e. welfare scammers, illegal immigrants, etc...), the flaming leftists should voluntarily pick up their health care tab and not force it down the throat of all taxpayers. Why should I suffer because the liberal cannot separate emotion from financial sensibility?
What does this article have to do with physics or technology? There are plenty of forums out there for liberals to discuss their hatred of Republicans - moveon.org or airamerica would be good places for this discussion.
It is impossible to tax the rich more than the poor. Tax the rich and it BECOMES a tax of the poor. Tax industry, and they take it out of the blue-collar pay. ALL taxes are POOR taxes. Tax rich high-salaried workers, and the industry raises their salaries and takes it out of the unskilled salaries.
Those of you defending National Health Care are basically saying, "We ALL must be FORCED to give to medical care! (Oh by the way, I hardly give anything to medical charities at the moment, and also, by the way, it would be the poor that eventually pay for the National Health Care)"
1. ALL taxes are POOR taxes.
2. When the government suppresses competition, quality and affordability suffers.
3. When the government promotes competition, quality and afordability improves.
4. When the government administers a process, the poor are taxed more, and both competition and efficiency suffer (they don't care about efficiency because they are spending somebody else's money)
So what we need is for the government to promote competition without administering health care.
Our current laws allow monopoly and do not promote competition (at least I'm not aware of any laws promoting competition).
One great way for the government to promote competition without administering health care, would be to protect small health providers from frivolous malpractice suits by letting providers require their customers to sign a disclaimer. Let the customers choose whether to pay a premium to a health provider that doesn't require a disclaimer, or get a discount and sign a disclaimer. And the government would defend those agreements.
Also, I ask those touters of national Health Care why there currently aren't any providers that give more charity than the government requires. You don't suppose there aren't enough customers willing to pay more to such a provider, do you? (I thought democracy had something to do with the majority of the people--obviously the majority isn't promoting charity health care). How about you? Would you pay more to such a provider? I'm not being sarcastic, here. I might actually consider going with such a provider. I think it'd be a cool idea. I even wouldn't mind a tad of government subsidy to such a provider.
The current system is broken. However it can be fixed by promoting competition and even market-driven charity (as described in the last paragraph). Letting the gubmint administer it is the worst thing we could do.
Sure, there would still be some people that can't afford even the cheap "disclaimed' health care in a healthy, high competition market with lower taxes. But generally health care in such a market, especially if there were optional charity providers, would be much improved over what it is now, and vastly improved over a government administered health system.
These sorts of things apply to much of the forced charity the government administers. People need to learn some basic economics, and basic politics and history.
Those of you defending National Health Care are basically saying, "We ALL must be FORCED to give to medical care! (Oh by the way, I hardly give anything to medical charities at the moment, and also, by the way, it would be the poor that eventually pay for the National Health Care)"
1. ALL taxes are POOR taxes.
2. When the government suppresses competition, quality and affordability suffers.
3. When the government promotes competition, quality and afordability improves.
4. When the government administers a process, the poor are taxed more, and both competition and efficiency suffer (they don't care about efficiency because they are spending somebody else's money)
So what we need is for the government to promote competition without administering health care.
Our current laws allow monopoly and do not promote competition (at least I'm not aware of any laws promoting competition).
One great way for the government to promote competition without administering health care, would be to protect small health providers from frivolous malpractice suits by letting providers require their customers to sign a disclaimer. Let the customers choose whether to pay a premium to a health provider that doesn't require a disclaimer, or get a discount and sign a disclaimer. And the government would defend those agreements.
Also, I ask those touters of national Health Care why there currently aren't any providers that give more charity than the government requires. You don't suppose there aren't enough customers willing to pay more to such a provider, do you? (I thought democracy had something to do with the majority of the people--obviously the majority isn't promoting charity health care). How about you? Would you pay more to such a provider? I'm not being sarcastic, here. I might actually consider going with such a provider. I think it'd be a cool idea. I even wouldn't mind a tad of government subsidy to such a provider.
The current system is broken. However it can be fixed by promoting competition and even market-driven charity (as described in the last paragraph). Letting the gubmint administer it is the worst thing we could do.
Sure, there would still be some people that can't afford even the cheap "disclaimed' health care in a healthy, high competition market with lower taxes. But generally health care in such a market, especially if there were optional charity providers, would be much improved over what it is now, and vastly improved over a government administered health system.
These sorts of things apply to much of the forced charity the government administers. People need to learn some basic economics, and basic politics and history.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.