Liberalism has won

[ThomasPaine]

So to get back on topic...

I think the average person doesn't even see it happening but liberalism is definitely taking over. Even the alleged conservatives are liberals. If you think for one second that the republican party is still conservative then they've got you right where they want you.

crack pipe and slowly back away..

 

[Mariner]

RightWing, you want doctors to compete on price. Wouldn't that generally end up meaning that the best doctors could afford to charge more; and the wealthiest people could afford to pay more. Hence the rich would get much better health care than the poor? Hospitals would simply turn away people who couldn't buy their services, just as stores do?

Mariner.

PS If LuvRP believes he can cut gov't 80% then he is effectively an anarchist. You haven't provided your own percent or said what you would cut.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RightWing, you want doctors to compete on price. Wouldn't that generally end up meaning that the best doctors could afford to charge more; and the wealthiest people could afford to pay more. Hence the rich would get much better health care than the poor? Hospitals would simply turn away people who couldn't buy their services, just as stores do?

Mariner.

PS If LuvRP believes he can cut gov't 80% then he is effectively an anarchist. You haven't provided your own percent or said what you would cut.

If they can convince the people that they're really that much better, let them try. The truth is that the technology is the key. The mri's and xrays. A monkey could probably be trained to locate an irregular black mass. And my butcher could probably remove it. My pusher could get me pain pills.

How come food is so cheap and plentiful for everyone without being centralized and government controlled? Are you saying that's impossible with medicine?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Since we're moving towards abortion and euthanasia to get rid of all the PROBLEM PEOPLE, you'll probably just be treating sniffles, depression, and small boob.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

RightWing, you want doctors to compete on price. Wouldn't that generally end up meaning that the best doctors could afford to charge more; and the wealthiest people could afford to pay more. Hence the rich would get much better health care than the poor? Hospitals would simply turn away people who couldn't buy their services, just as stores do?

Mariner.

PS If LuvRP believes he can cut gov't 80% then he is effectively an anarchist. You haven't provided your own percent or said what you would cut.

Did you know that many years ago people in the U.S. actually paid for their own health care by themselves instead of through insurance companies?

The rich/powerful always have and always will get better services. Learn to live with that fact.

Where does it say a person is entitled to the best of health care?

Universal/socialized health care for the masses will only drive doctors out of the business of health care since there will be no reason for them to study and work so hard when they can get about the same income driving a truck.

 

[Hobbit]

Did you know that many years ago people in the U.S. actually paid for their own health care by themselves instead of through insurance companies?

The rich/powerful always have and always will get better services. Learn to live with that fact.

Where does it say a person is entitled to the best of health care?

Universal/socialized health care for the masses will only drive doctors out of the business of health care since there will be no reason for them to study and work so hard when they can get about the same income driving a truck.

If I have a medical problem, I can get hepled at a "Quick Care" clinic after a few hours in the waiting room. If it's not so urgent, I can get a doctor's appointment within a week. In Canada, they brag about waiting lists as short as two weeks for 'serious cases.' I'll stick with paying for my health care, thank you very much.

 

[Mariner]

It doesn't say anywhere that people are entitled to health care. It's an expectation that has arisen among people based on the moral repugnance of depriving people of available care.

Self-pay systems are not practical because even fairly wealthy people cannot afford the most extreme forms of care that are sometimes required, e.g. transplantation.

What would you say about the following scenarios:

1. A fire in a nightclub results in many people having severe burns over large areas of their body. None can afford the care. Therefore, in Screaming Eagle-land, they are given morphine until their burns ooze, they dehydrate, and die?

2. A CEO gets Type 1 diabetes and gets kidney failure. In order to afford dialysis, he has to sell his houses, use up his savings, and pull his kids out of college. When his money runs out, he dies?

3. A baby is born to a crack-addicted mother. The baby's ICU care costs $100,000. The baby can't afford it. We should let the baby die?

RWA, believe me, medicine is a little more complicated than reading MRI's. Even reading MRI's (which my dad did for a living) is hardly simple. You want to look at a fuzzy picture and tell me whether it's more likely a deadly cancer or a normal anatomical variant?

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Self-pay systems are not practical because even fairly wealthy people cannot afford the most extreme forms of care that are sometimes required, e.g. transplantation.
.

Prices will come down with the introduction of free market forces into medicine.

 

[trobinett]

I don`t have a problem with people "hedging" their bet with medical insurance.

It`s all the rest of welfare type medical care, that I have issue with.

Free medical care DOESN`T exist, even in Canada. Someone pay`s, nothing is free, EVER!

When people were paying their way with medical care, hospitals, and doctors could afford too help those that couldn`t help themselves. People weren`t left to die in streets, at least no more than they are NOW.

When the medical field is put back on a free market system, you`ll see a turn around in cost management.

 

[Mariner]

I'm not sure that's true. Consider some of the free-market problems within medicine now:

--cosmetic surgeons, liposuction dermatologists, and Lasik operators can make fortunes, because they cater to people who can afford the "medical" care they want... but who is going to pay for the care of a schizophrenic homeless person with an end-stage medical illness? How can the free market serve this person?

--if people can choose their day-to-day doctors in general, you still need some sort of emergency care available to everyone, equally. You can't be checking people's bank statements before you pull them out of burning cars and perform emergency surgery on them.

--hospitals currently divert one patient per minute nationwide. In other words, they are pushing the edge of medical ethics by refusing treatment to a patient that they believe will lose money for them. In a pure free-market system, you could expect this effect to be vastly increased--hospitals could chose whom to serve.

The free market idea doesn't solve what to do for poorer people who simply can't afford to pay for any major chunk of the care they receive. After all, on minimum wage, you can't afford any private form of health insurance. Why not? What's stopping the free market from "solving" this problem right now? Any insurer who wants to could get in on the action. Problem is, there's not action there, just a bunch of poor, sick people, most of whom worked hard all their lives (sometimes 2 or 3 jobs). Which doctor, hospital or insurer wants to compete for the opportunity to serve those who can't pay?

And with private companies getting out of providing health insurance, more and more people are turning to state/Federal Medicaid/Medicare.

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not sure that's true. Consider some of the free-market problems within medicine now:

--cosmetic surgeons, liposuction dermatologists, and Lasik operators can make fortunes, because they cater to people who can afford the "medical" care they want... but who is going to pay for the care of a schizophrenic homeless person with an end-stage medical illness? How can the free market serve this person?

--if people can choose their day-to-day doctors in general, you still need some sort of emergency care available to everyone, equally. You can't be checking people's bank statements before you pull them out of burning cars and perform emergency surgery on them.

--hospitals currently divert one patient per minute nationwide. In other words, they are pushing the edge of medical ethics by refusing treatment to a patient that they believe will lose money for them. In a pure free-market system, you could expect this effect to be vastly increased--hospitals could chose whom to serve.

The free market idea doesn't solve what to do for poorer people who simply can't afford to pay for any major chunk of the care they receive. After all, on minimum wage, you can't afford any private form of health insurance. Why not? What's stopping the free market from "solving" this problem right now? Any insurer who wants to could get in on the action. Problem is, there's not action there, just a bunch of poor, sick people, most of whom worked hard all their lives (sometimes 2 or 3 jobs). Which doctor, hospital or insurer wants to compete for the opportunity to serve those who can't pay?

And with private companies getting out of providing health insurance, more and more people are turning to state/Federal Medicaid/Medicare.

Mariner.

Agreed--in the free market system (capitalism) one MUST choose to compete or he will be at a disadvantage. You cannot choose to simply be comfortable and go without the frills and still expect to receive good health care or legal representation.