You Must Be A Liberal If...

[Bern80]

I realize that increasing capacity will be a necessary element of any successful UHC system. I realize that there is the potential for enormous savings when the profit motive is removed from a large number of the levels and angles of today's system.

I don't know why so many are under the assumption that the profit motive is this evil thing. It is the purpose of private business to be profitable. The profit motive is what provides jobs, it's what creates jobs, and what leads to better products and services. Yet for whatever reason, some on the left want to argue that private businesses are all a bunch of swindlers that want to screw people at every turn. Newsflash, those companies don't stay in business long.

And bottom line: I just firmly believe that the world's richest and most powerful country ought to be able to provide a bare bones level of healthcare to its citizens. It is, for me, not a matter of if, but a matter of how and when.

Most states already have such a system in place.

I firmly beleive that it isn't calous or cruel to ask that people prepare financially for their future and all that entails. This goes back to my complacency argument. What type of system is going to breed the best and the brightest? What type of system is going to ensure that the resouces available are the best possible?

Is that going to come from a system that eliminates incentives for reaching goals or one that rewards people for achieving and improving?

 

[Bern80]

At the end of the day, I come down on the other side than you. I would sacrific having my medical needs met exactly when I want them in order that those in greater need can get medical care when they need it.

What you don't get though is that there is no trade off like the one above if we were to switch to socialzied medicine.

Those people that weren't insured before aren't inherently going to go the front of the line. Those that need to be treated go to the head of the line. Those people can come from any segement of society. It could as easily come from the same group of people that could pay for it previously. The previously uninsured (nor anybody else) will be able to take preventitive measures. because the supply of available time will be taken by those that need it first, while some all might authority gets to decide who needs what and how long you need to remain in pain before they deem you sick enough to be treated. What kind of bull shit system is that, that makes sure everyone is sick enough before they get treated? You want to increase the suffering of 85% of the population on the chance that the 15% may receive healthcare of some type.

there are just so many better options out there that can take care of 15% of the population withouth sacraficing the quality of care for everyone.

 

[maineman]

I don't know why so many are under the assumption that the profit motive is this evil thing. It is the purpose of private business to be profitable. The profit motive is what provides jobs, it's what creates jobs, and what leads to better products and services. Yet for whatever reason, some on the left want to argue that private businesses are all a bunch of swindlers that want to screw people at every turn. Newsflash, those companies don't stay in business long.

Most states already have such a system in place.

I firmly beleive that it isn't calous or cruel to ask that people prepare financially for their future and all that entails. This goes back to my complacency argument. What type of system is going to breed the best and the brightest? What type of system is going to ensure that the resouces available are the best possible?

Is that going to come from a system that eliminates incentives for reaching goals or one that rewards people for achieving and improving?

knock it off! Quit fucking putting words in my mouth. I never said that profit was evil.

And regardng your considering your position to not be callous or cruel. I would toss four letters at you: WWJD?

I sure as hell know what he SAID: "Whatever you do to the least of those, you do to me." So... go tell Jesus that you really could give a shit whether he can pay for healthcare or not.... you tell HIM that if he can't cough up the cash, to go fucking die someplace. Go tell HIM that. The LEAST of us are not lazy or poor planners, the least of us do not have the God given gifts to succeed on this earth, but God put them on here anyway....and I personally think one of the reasons he DID was to test you and me as to how well we listened to what Jesus SAID.

But hey.... letting insurance companies get filthy rich being middlemen in a system that is grossly inefficient seems like a much more Christian approach to you, so you go with that.

 

[Bern80]

knock it off! Quit fucking putting words in my mouth. I never said that profit was evil.

And regardng your considering your position to not be callous or cruel. I would toss four letters at you: WWJD?

I sure as hell know what he SAID: "Whatever you do to the least of those, you do to me." So... go tell Jesus that you really could give a shit whether he can pay for healthcare or not.... you tell HIM that if he can't cough up the cash, to go fucking die someplace. Go tell HIM that. The LEAST of us are not lazy or poor planners, the least of us do not have the God given gifts to succeed on this earth, but God put them on here anyway....and I personally think one of the reasons he DID was to test you and me as to how well we listened to what Jesus SAID.

But hey.... letting insurance companies get filthy rich being middlemen in a system that is grossly inefficient seems like a much more Christian approach to you, so you go with that.

I'm not a christian first. So I don't give to two shits about your righteous WWJD BS. That particular load of shit won't work with me.

I don't need some book written by fallable men to teach me how to be moral. You're the one who isn't fucking listening dip shit.

I WANT ALL PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT WILL CREATE MORE SUFFERING, NOT LESS AND I DON'T WANT THEM HAVEING THE CONTROL OVER ME TO TELL ME WHEN I'M SICK ENOUGH TO DESERVE TREATMENT.

YOU can stop putting words in my mouth asswipe. I never said that you specifically believe any of that. I said there are people on this board that do.

 

[maineman]

I'm not a christian first. So I don't give to two shits about your righteous WWJD BS. That particular load of shit won't work with me.

I don't need some book written by fallable men to teach me how to be moral. You're the one who isn't fucking listening dip shit.

I WANT ALL PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT WILL CREATE MORE SUFFERING, NOT LESS AND I DON'T WANT THEM HAVEING THE CONTROL OVER ME TO TELL ME WHEN I'M SICK ENOUGH TO DESERVE TREATMENT.

YOU can stop putting words in my mouth asswipe. I never said that you specifically believe any of that. I said there are people on this board that do.

I ama Christian. I believe that we need to find a way to provide healthcare to everyone. I have acknowledged that supply problems need to be addressed. I have acknowledged that demand will go up and, if supply is not increased, that access to healthcare providers will create longer queues. I don't really care what sorts of problems there are with implementing UHC. I believe we must find a way to solve those problems.

and you'll forgive me if, after you quote a sentence from ME about profits, and then immediately reply with "I don't know why so many are under the assumption that the profit motive is this evil thing", I might haVEcome to the conclusion that you had me in mind.

 

[Bern80]

I ama Christian. I believe that we need to find a way to provide healthcare to everyone. I have acknowledged that supply problems need to be addressed. I have acknowledged that demand will go up and, if supply is not increased, that access to healthcare providers will create longer queues. I don't really care what sorts of problems there are with implementing UHC. I believe we must find a way to solve those problems.

There are two main reasons I am not for UHC. One is an ideological one that is really an entirely different debate. The other is a logistical one.

I will try to make this as sensical as possible so please bear with me. Mainly I don't understand the order in which you want to implement things. I base that statement on the way this debate has unfolded and the misunderstandings that have resulted. Many have accussed me in some form or other of not wanting everyone to have access to healthcare. Which is untrue. My problem is with the ineffectiveness and deterioration of quality that I beleive will result in a free, government run system. Which is why I don't think government have more control over the industry will result in the goal that we all want. Assuming I had not other compunctions about UHC I would be all for it. But there are major logistical hurdles in the way that, if aren't dealth with, will doom UHC to failure before it gets off the ground at all. Broadly those are three things:

1) I don't trust the current state of our government to hande funding and/or administering healthcare efficiently or effectively.

2) Affordable healthcare is meaningless without prompt access to it. Personally I don't believe I am wrong using laws of supply and demand to illustrate what will happen when price goes down. Yes you are right that demand for brain surgery won't go up, but never the less demand for services will go up. The question is are we in a position to effectively meet that demand? Based on personal experience with the medical industry (which a dare say is probably more extensive than most) I don't beleive we can.

3)Thirdly, I am leary of a degradition in quality of our physicians and facilities. In private business companies improve themselves by reinvesting their profits in the company to buy or upgrade equipment, to give raises, to hire more people etc. What mechanism will be put in place to take the place of this reinvestment at our hospitals. Presumabley the government. If you don't think there will be politicians jockeying for what hospitals in who's districts get what upgrades you have another thing comeing.
And how will we meet demand for more physicians? Either we have to create incentives for more people to become doctors or we have to lower the standards by which people are allowed to become doctors.


These are the things we should be talking about because these are what will determine if UHC is a success or failure

In short I want a system that maintains the quality we have that is prompt and accessible to all. I think most everyone can agree on that. I don't believe that to be an impossibility.

and you'll forgive me if, after you quote a sentence from ME about profits, and then immediately reply with "I don't know why so many are under the assumption that the profit motive is this evil thing", I might haVEcome to the conclusion that you had me in mind.

Fine then, I'll just ask.

Do you, or do you not beleive that the profit motive is a problem in the U.S. healthcare industry?

 

[Ruby]

Bern80, you have a few quotes in your posts that you attribute to me but actually are maineman quotes. I would appreciate it if you wouldnt do that, its very dishonest.

Secondly a few points here. UHC are designed to meet NEEDS and DEMAND. That IS the point of the system. It views demand and that becomes the GOAL to reach. Demand isnt perfectly static though so continued adjustments are made.

People in socialized systems DO get preventative care. I get my annual check ups and recenly I wanted a very complete work up and had NO PROBLEMS getting it. The system is designed with the DEMAND in mind, it is the focus. If we arent meeting demand then you need more facilities and more doctors.

Currently in my socialized setting, there are enough doctors and MORE people trying to become doctors than we need....we would end up with an overabundance of doctors so colleges have limited numbers they will take and you have to have the BEST grades to get in. My sister-in-law is now is in her 3rd year of medical school and it took her 2 years to get in.

When health care is over-burdened and medical services need to be rationed, it should be done so according to NEED and not ability to pay or whether you have insurance or not. In socialized medicine it would be done by NEED which is the moral and correct way vs doing it based on ability to pay.

Dont tell me that the US system is not catering to those who can pay while leaving behind those who cant. Its already rationing services based on cash and not on need.

Whats needed is to create a UHC system that bases itself on meeting the demand that already exists and maintain that. A system that has some flexibility for the changing demand and can coordinate with other facilities when over-burdened.

A word on profit, I dont think anyone said profit was evil. I know that here many (if not most) of the hospitals and doctors offices are private ownership...they get PAID by the govt for the services the render. They profit, but there are price controls and you dont get to charge $50 for an aspirin. Thats the reason socialized systems are paying less per capita, they negotiate pricing and refuse the ridiculous price gauging that goes on in the US health industry.

 

[maineman]

.



Fine then, I'll just ask.

Do you, or do you not beleive that the profit motive is a problem in the U.S. healthcare industry?

no...let ME ask you first: are all things that are a problem also EVIL?

 

[ReillyT]

Those people that weren't insured before aren't inherently going to go the front of the line. Those that need to be treated go to the head of the line. Those people can come from any segement of society. It could as easily come from the same group of people that could pay for it previously.

I agree. It would be a system that focuses on needs.

The previously uninsured (nor anybody else) will be able to take preventitive measures. because the supply of available time will be taken by those that need it first, while some all might authority gets to decide who needs what and how long you need to remain in pain before they deem you sick enough to be treated. What kind of bull shit system is that, that makes sure everyone is sick enough before they get treated?

First, this assumes that there is not a high emphasis on preventive care, which would be silly. A universal health care system could be structured in many ways, and a focus on prevention makes the greatest sense because it will reduce subsequent costs due to untreated escalating conditions. Second, preventive care is generally carried out by GPs. The question then becomes whether we have enough GPs. I don’t know the answer, but in any event, there are means to increase the number of GPs in the nation. Finally, it is true that there will be an increasing number of people visiting these GPs to obtain free, preventative physicals and procedures, and this may (or may not) stress the current availability of doctors. However, I don’t find much traction in the argument that because more people will be able to attain preventive care, fewer people will be able to attain preventive care.

You want to increase the suffering of 85% of the population on the chance that the 15% may receive healthcare of some type.

I think that this comment is disingenuous. First, it assumes that 85% of the population is utilizing quality health care. This ignores the fact that in addition to the uninsured, the US also has millions of underinsured. Further, there is a segment of the population that does not utilize even adequate insurance due to the cost of co-pays and deductibles. Second, it also assumes that medical care will get worse for everyone who currently has insurance. I don’t see why this is necessarily the case. There will inevitably be shortages and unmet demand in certain specialties and procedures, but not all specialties and procedures. I don’t envision 85% of the population waiting with untreated chronic ailments, and I see no reason why I should.

there are just so many better options out there that can take care of 15% of the population withouth sacraficing the quality of care for everyone.

If there is an option that could provide quality health care treatment to 100% of the populace, which is attainable by all persons, which is cost-effective, and which doesn’t involved a national system, I am more than happy to consider it.

** It is important to remember that in addition to a national system, there could still be a private insurance option. I believe that in the UK there is private insurance for those who want options not provided by NHS. There are also a few hundred private hospitals.

 

[Bern80]

no...let ME ask you first: are all things that are a problem also EVIL?

You don't get to dodge out of this one MM. I know exactley what you want to do. You want me to answer this so we can go off on some tangent that allows you to avoid answering my question. I can't let YOU ask me first because YOU didn't ask me first. I asked YOU first.

I will answer your's honestly after you answer man.

 

[maineman]

Let's play: I said/you said

I realize that increasing capacity will be a necessary element of any successful UHC system. I realize that there is the potential for enormous savings when the profit motive is removed from a large number of the levels and angles of today's system.

I don't know why so many are under the assumption that the profit motive is this EVIL thing.

Quit fucking putting words in my mouth. I never said that profit was EVIL.

YOU can stop putting words in my mouth asswipe. I never said that you specifically believe any of that. I said there are people on this board that do.

and you'll forgive me if, after you quote a sentence from ME about profits, and then immediately reply with "I don't know why so many are under the assumption that the profit motive is this evil thing", I might have come to the conclusion that you had me in mind.

Fine then, I'll just ask.

Do you, or do you not beleive that the profit motive is a problem in the U.S. healthcare industry?

no...let ME ask you first: are all things that are a problem also EVIL?

see how that all played out?

but why in the world would you think that because I believe that our current multi-layered adversarial system with lawyers and insurance companies and hospitals all trying to make a buck on health care might be inefficient, that I, therefore think that the profit motive is bad?

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, you have a few quotes in your posts that you attribute to me but actually are maineman quotes. I would appreciate it if you wouldnt do that, its very dishonest.

Please show me where. I don't beleive I have. If you look when you use the quote feature you will see that, if you quote me for example, my name i already in place. I am not in the habit of erasing people's names and putting in others.

Secondly a few points here. UHC are designed to meet NEEDS and DEMAND. That IS the point of the system. It views demand and that becomes the GOAL to reach. Demand isnt perfectly static though so continued adjustments are made.

I'm sorry Ruby, but that is simply incorrect. Yes it is implied in the term universal healthcare that everyone is going to get it and thus demand is met. But, that isn't reality. In the laws of supply and demand there are three variables: price, quantity demanded, and quantity supplied. UHC changes only one of those variables, which is price by reducing it.

The goal of meeting demand and a system being designed to meet it (your words) are two extremely different things. By reducing price quantity demanded increases, true. that does not in of iteslf mean demand will be meat. For demand to met it must be equal to or less than quantity supplied. When price goes down, quantity supplied also goes down.

All I am saying is that if we adopt a socialized system we need to do some analysis to see if we have the supply to meet an increase in demand before adopting the system.

People in socialized systems DO get preventative care. I get my annual check ups and recenly I wanted a very complete work up and had NO PROBLEMS getting it. The system is designed with the DEMAND in mind, it is the focus. If we arent meeting demand then you need more facilities and more doctors.

Currently in my socialized setting, there are enough doctors and MORE people trying to become doctors than we need....we would end up with an overabundance of doctors so colleges have limited numbers they will take and you have to have the BEST grades to get in. My sister-in-law is now is in her 3rd year of medical school and it took her 2 years to get in.

When health care is over-burdened and medical services need to be rationed, it should be done so according to NEED and not ability to pay or whether you have insurance or not. In socialized medicine it would be done by NEED which is the moral and correct way vs doing it based on ability to pay.

But it also erroneous to assume that because it works in Sweden in will work here. Obviously the most signficantly different variable is population. What I think would be interesting is to see what the ratio of physiciancs to the rest of the population in both countries.

And isn't it a slight contradiction to say that socialzied systems can provide prevention but there goal is also to meet needs. Prevention isn't a need and the only way to do both is for there to be a surplus of time where the needs of people have been met to then use the remaining time to focus on prevention. I simply don't believe the health care industry in the U.S. has sufficient free time to first meet everybody's needs and then focus on prevention.

Dont tell me that the US system is not catering to those who can pay while leaving behind those who cant. Its already rationing services based on cash and not on need.

Personally I don't see those two options as oppossed to each other. I think the needs of all the citizenry should be met. At the same time I don't think it is unreasonable that a person share some financial responsibility for their own health.

If we were able to have some policies in place that allowed insureance companies to have cheaper rates such that we could get those rates close or equal to what one would pay for them in taxes, what difference does it make? Out of pure curiosity (I'm not trying to bait you here) what is the dollar figure you pay each month roughly in healthcare tax?

 

[Bern80]

Let's play: I said/you said

I have a better idea. How about you just go play with yourself. I'll wait.

 

[maineman]

I have a better idea. How about you just go play with yourself. I'll wait.

if you won't admit that you tried to take my comment about excess profit and spin it into my thinking profits in general were "evil", then that is disappointing. I think I answered your question in any case.

 

[Bern80]

if you won't admit that you tried to take my comment about excess profit and spin it into my thinking profits in general were "evil", then that is disappointing. I think I answered your question in any case.

the statement that you made that you beleive there would be an improvement in our healthcare industry if the profit motive was removed is very much a statement that you beleive there is some characteristic of the profit motive that is nefarious in nature and is aimed at basically screwing people.

You're the one who needs to spinning and quit pretending you didn't say what you in fact said.

Now answer the question. Or you not to be held to the same standard you insist upon with everyone else?

 

[maineman]

the statement that you made that you beleive there would be an improvement in our healthcare industry if the profit motive was removed is very much a statement that you beleive there is some characteristic of the profit motive that is nefarious in nature and is aimed at basically screwing people.

You're the one who needs to spinning and quit pretending you didn't say what you in fact said.

Now answer the question. Or you not to be held to the same standard you insist upon with everyone else?

stating that I think there would be an "improvement in the healthcare system by removing some of the "for-profit" layers that have grown up over the years" equates to the "profit motive itself is EVIL and nefarious in purpose and is aimed at basically screwing people"???

Hey bernie.... eat shit.

 

[maineman]

"Do you, or do you not beleive that the profit motive is a problem in the U.S. healthcare industry?"

I SAY AGAIN:

I believe that the system that has grown over the years to finance our health care has too many layers that, not only are adversarial in nature, but are all aiming at making a return on their business investment. Ie that a "problem"? Not really a "problem", but an area that might be improved and costs decreased by some less multi-layered, less adversarial, less profit driven system. Is that "nefarious"? Is that "evil"? Is that designed to "screw people over"? NO

Did that answer your question, asshole?

 

[Alpha1]

Originally Posted by maineman
I am a Christian. I believe that we need to find a way to provide healthcare to everyone. I have acknowledged that supply problems need to be addressed. I have acknowledged that demand will go up and, if supply is not increased, that access to healthcare providers will create longer queues. I don't really care what sorts of problems there are with implementing UHC. I believe we must find a way to solve those problems.
---------------------
So...YOU are a Christian....and YOU BELIEVE we need to provide healthcare to everyone....?

So, the rest of us need to accept your version of Christianity?
We need to accept YOUR beliefs?

Very liberal of you....to say we need to accept YOUR views....

 

[Bern80]

"Do you, or do you not beleive that the profit motive is a problem in the U.S. healthcare industry?"

I SAY AGAIN:

I believe that the system that has grown over the years to finance our health care has too many layers that, not only are adversarial in nature, but are all aiming at making a return on their business investment. Ie that a "problem"? Not really a "problem", but an area that might be improved and costs decreased by some less multi-layered, less adversarial, less profit driven system. Is that "nefarious"? Is that "evil"? Is that designed to "screw people over"? NO

Did that answer your question, asshole?

Not really, no. But your double speak is getting better by the day. What you're saying is practically the definition of it. You claim you don't beleieve the profit motive is evil or nefarious, yet at the same time claim the profit motive is part of the problem. If it has nothing to do with greed, or wanting to turn a buck at the expense of people's health, what exactley is the problem with the profit motive?

I have stated on several occassions the 'layer' that needs to be removed in order for prices to go down is the ridiculous level of government regulation in both our facilities and in insureance companies. Those are expenses to both of them. To remain profitable and able to reinvest in themselves that cost must be passed to the consumer. The very reason these government regulations is because government beleives private business can't be trusted to do the right thing.

 

[maineman]

Originally Posted by maineman
I am a Christian. I believe that we need to find a way to provide healthcare to everyone. I have acknowledged that supply problems need to be addressed. I have acknowledged that demand will go up and, if supply is not increased, that access to healthcare providers will create longer queues. I don't really care what sorts of problems there are with implementing UHC. I believe we must find a way to solve those problems.
---------------------
So...YOU are a Christian....and YOU BELIEVE we need to provide healthcare to everyone....?

So, the rest of us need to accept your version of Christianity?
We need to accept YOUR beliefs?

Very liberal of you....to say we need to accept YOUR views....

now if you could only find any quote from me that says that the rest of you need to accept my version of Christianity or my beliefs, or my views, that would be real nice.

but, of course, we know you you cannot find such a quote because I never said it.

Why do you always do shit like that, write? are you a failed Christian, perhaps, with a guilty conscience?