Healthcare cost a crime

[Flopper]

Being one of those old folks, I can say without hesitation that you are full of crap.

A second opinion: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtI6ZVOzWqQ]Needy Seniors or Greedy Geezers? -- Stossel In The Classroom - YouTube[/ame]

A darkened mole can be just a mole or it can be a melanoma.

You shouldn't need a doctor to recognize a mole from something that's probably not a mole.

The idea that anyone goes to the doctor for the fun of being poked with needles, asked embarrassing questions and scared shirtless over possible diagnosis is absurd. Paying $10 or $20 for it is even more absurd.

If you were to go to the doctor every month, you wouldn't have to be asked those "embarrassing questions" every time.

If people had to pay their doctor the full cost of service as you seems to suggest, many would not go to the doctor month or even yearly. Putting off going to the doctor to have those little problems checked out because paying the mortgage and putting food on the table has a higher priority, can be very costly in the long run. Discovering a heart problem, cancer, or many other diseases in their early stages can mean the difference between relatively low cost treatments and a normal life and huge medical costs and an early death. You seem to suggesting the latter.

 

[Flopper]

Very few people actually get free medical care. Almost all insurance programs have co-pays or coinsurance. For Medicare it's 20% which for the average doctor visit is about $25.

Many if not most get supplemental insurance for $100-300/month and then healthcare is again free and so very abused! Any resource you don't pay for will be greatly abused. This is why the USSR failed. Its common sense that a child can follow, just not a liberal.

Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free. Even going to the doctor is rarely a pleasant experience. People use medical services because there're sick, in pain, or are availing themselves of preventive care that can save a lot of money as well as their life.

Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.

If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none. That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.

common sense will tell you that if it's free far more of it will be consumed.
a liberal has no common sense? Imagine having to argue about that?

Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.

some perhaps, but all would abuse it by having state of the art medical care and state of the art or very very expensive funerals.
Again, common sense to all but a liberal.

If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none. That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.

no one says it has to be pure. If we had capitalism costs would be about 10% of what they are now and most could afford it. Those who couldn't could use partial vouchers so the incentive would be to shop and provider's incentive would be to compete.

If you want an example that even a liberal can follow consider China. They instantly went from en masse liberal starvation to getting rich just by switching to some key elements of capitalism.

Still over your head???

 

[Ariux]

Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free. Even going to the doctor is rarely a pleasant experience. People use medical services because there're sick, in pain, or are availing themselves of preventive care that can save a lot of money as well as their life.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so it's curious that you hold the shitbrained position that price of healthcare doesn't affect demand for healthcare. Both reason and evidence say you're a fool.

People want uncomfortable things because of their fear of having a health problem can be greater than the discomfort of the test. Take mammograms. Studies show that there's no reason for women to get annual mammograms, so the government changed their annual recommendation... how did women's groups respond? Look it up and learn something.

If those dumb c***s had to pay for those mammograms out of pocket, most of them would be completely fine going half as often, or even less often. Likewise, I know many women who run themselves or their kids to the doctor with every sneeze, and when I ask why they wast money in such a way, they tell me insurance pays for it.

I'm serious that if I could get free medical care, I'd go every month for a battery of blood tests worth at least a $1000, not out of fear of disease but just out of curiosity of changes over time. Other people would go monthly just out of fear of high cholesterol, or some other thing.

Many health problems can be cured by taking better care of yourself. A lot of fat people would be more motivated to lose weight if they were paying out of pocket to treat the problems and discomforts resulting from their obesity.

If I were 99 years old, I might want a $200,000 in medical care even if it would only extend my life a little bit in bed, because it would be free to me.

I could go on endlessly making these point.

Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.

You, on the other hand, can only make totally stupid points. People die once, and only once, regardless of the cost of a funeral. This rule doesn't apply to demand for medical treatment.

If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none. That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.

So the **** what if the rich can get the best medical care? What the **** is it of your business? Besides, the only way with any medical system for the rich to get the same care as everyone else is if the law prohibits them from spending their money for their health. That's just spite, having nothing to do with the quality of medical care that the middle-class can get. (In fact, it might hurt the quality of medical care the middle-class can get.)

No medical system in the world can give the middle-class better than moderate medical care. The resources simply don't exist. And, even if they did, it's a damn foolish waste of money. Doubling the spending on someone's medical care would only result in a tiny improvement in the quality of medical care.

As for the poor. They can go get a job if they want medical treatment. But, if you really insist on paying them to devote their lives to crime and self-abuse instead of productivity, that's what welfare is for.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I could go on endlessly making these point.

yes but you have to remember you're talking to liberals. Here's a simple enough question even for liberals.

What would happen if you made pork chops free in a supermarket. Would people consume more or less.

 

[Political Junky]

Nobody's talking about making healthcare free.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nobody's talking about making healthcare free.

BO is for single payer, actually. We all know how his thinking will "evolve" if its given half a chance. If liberals can't promise free stuff how else will they buy votes?

This is not fair to Republicans, they only promise freedom.

 

[Political Junky]

Nobody's talking about making healthcare free.

BO is for single payer, actually. We all know how his thinking will "evolve" if its given half a chance. If liberals can't promise free stuff how else will they buy votes?

This is not fair to Republicans, they only promise freedom.

I'm for single payer, too, but it's not free. You should really read something about it other than right wingnut sources.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm for single payer, too, but it's not free. You should really read something about it other than right wingnut sources.

since the bottom half pay no taxes and the top 1% pay 40% of taxes its in effect free to the majority of voters ! This is like running a kindergarten.

 

[Ariux]

since the bottom half pay no taxes and the top 1% pay 40% of taxes its in effect free to the majority of voters ! This is like running a kindergarten.

The income tax isn't the only tax.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

since the bottom half pay no taxes and the top 1% pay 40% of taxes its in effect free to the majority of voters ! This is like running a kindergarten.

The top 1% own like 40% of America's wealth,

they might own 100% but still the bottom 50% pay no taxes and so single payer would in effect be free to them!! You have to know what the subject is

but the middle-class pays a higher tax rate than the rich.

if true I'll pay you 10,000. What you mean is Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than the middle class because he pays it all as cap gains while most in his class don't have that percent of cap gains income so do infact pay higher rate than middle class.

I'm sorry shitheads like you think the federal personal income tax is the only tax.

If I said that I'll pay you 10,000. Bet ?? or runaway again!!

 

[beagle9]

Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free. Even going to the doctor is rarely a pleasant experience. People use medical services because there're sick, in pain, or are availing themselves of preventive care that can save a lot of money as well as their life.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so it's curious that you hold the shitbrained position that price of healthcare doesn't affect demand for healthcare. Both reason and evidence say you're a fool.

People want uncomfortable things because of their fear of having a health problem can be greater than the discomfort of the test. Take mammograms. Studies show that there's no reason for women to get annual mammograms, so the government changed their annual recommendation... how did women's groups respond? Look it up and learn something.

If those dumb c***s had to pay for those mammograms out of pocket, most of them would be completely fine going half as often, or even less often. Likewise, I know many women who run themselves or their kids to the doctor with every sneeze, and when I ask why they wast money in such a way, they tell me insurance pays for it.

I'm serious that if I could get free medical care, I'd go every month for a battery of blood tests worth at least a $1000, not out of fear of disease but just out of curiosity of changes over time. Other people would go monthly just out of fear of high cholesterol, or some other thing.

Many health problems can be cured by taking better care of yourself. A lot of fat people would be more motivated to lose weight if they were paying out of pocket to treat the problems and discomforts resulting from their obesity.

If I were 99 years old, I might want a $200,000 in medical care even if it would only extend my life a little bit in bed, because it would be free to me.

I could go on endlessly making these point.

Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.

You, on the other hand, can only make totally stupid points. People die once, and only once, regardless of the cost of a funeral. This rule doesn't apply to demand for medical treatment.

If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none. That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.

So the **** what if the rich can get the best medical care? What the **** is it of your business? Besides, the only way with any medical system for the rich to get the same care as everyone else is if the law prohibits them from spending their money for their health. That's just spite, having nothing to do with the quality of medical care that the middle-class can get. (In fact, it might hurt the quality of medical care the middle-class can get.)

No medical system in the world can give the middle-class better than moderate medical care. The resources simply don't exist. And, even if they did, it's a damn foolish waste of money. Doubling the spending on someone's medical care would only result in a tiny improvement in the quality of medical care.

As for the poor. They can go get a job if they want medical treatment. But, if you really insist on paying them to devote their lives to crime and self-abuse instead of productivity, that's what welfare is for.

You are a weird one to call someone else names I'm sad to say, and so you have the nerve to call others names on here just as you do, but why (in order to hopefully make your point somehow by this bullying tactic used) ?

My sister went and had a mamogram (within her two year check up's), and then she went back between the two years, because she felt something wrong, and guess what it was that was wrong ? Yep, she found out she had breast cancer on her next earliest visit. Now somewhere within a two year span she was clean, but somewhere between the two years she began having the symtoms of breast cancer, and thus found out that she had it within that period. The scan didnot show it on her two year visit, but before she could make it to the next normal scheduled visit, she had developed the problem..

Now if she hadn't of went for that check up again, who knows what would have happened to my sister in between these check up's, I mean if she had put it off for say 5 years or less ? Happy to say she is cancer free now, and I am hopeful and praying that she remains this way.

 

[Ariux]

My sister went and had a mamogram (within her two year check up's), and then she went back between the two years, because she felt something wrong, and guess what it was that was wrong ? Yep, she found out she had breast cancer on her next earliest visit.

What you say is going to happen sometimes. But, dumbdumbs don't have the intellect to weigh the costs. Excessive breast screening results in unnecessary cancer treatment, because of false positives. While a delay in finding a lump has minimal impact on outcome. Don't argue with me - this is the conclusion of scientific studies that caused the government to change its recommendation.

Sticking to just your sister, did she find this cancer within a year after a mammogram? If so, the government's change of recommendation, assuming she was following it, had absolutely no effect on her.

If she had chosen to NEVER have routine mammograms per the government's new recommendation, it would have made absolutely no difference, because she found it herself, not the routine mammogram.

Only in the window of the second year, specifically the time between when she would have had a second annual mammogram and the time she found the lump would have been the difference, and the effect on the outcome would have been minimal. It might even be that the second annual mammogram would have missed it (it's a lot easier for a doctor to find a lump after the woman finds it herself), which would have resulted in absolutely no difference if she had annual mammograms (more than 4 of 5 lumps are found by the women themselves, not by annual screening, even when there is annual screening).

Breast cancer is a political disease because men don't get it (like AIDS is a political disease because moral people don't get it) (Don't argue). Lung cancer kills far more women than breast cancer, but women aren't screaming that the government doesn't recommend annual lung cancer screening. The government doesn't even recommend that people ever get lung cancer screenings! The government shouldn't recommend any routine screenings for any kind of cancer for anyone who isn't at very high risk.

 

[beagle9]

My sister went and had a mamogram (within her two year check up's), and then she went back between the two years, because she felt something wrong, and guess what it was that was wrong ? Yep, she found out she had breast cancer on her next earliest visit.

What you say is going to happen sometimes. But, dumbdumbs don't have the intellect to weigh the costs. Excessive breast screening results in unnecessary cancer treatment, because of false positives. While a delay in finding a lump has minimal impact on outcome. Don't argue with me - this is the conclusion of scientific studies that caused the government to change its recommendation.

Sticking to just your sister, did she find this cancer within a year after a mammogram? If so, the government's change of recommendation, assuming she was following it, had absolutely no effect on her.

If she had chosen to NEVER have routine mammograms per the government's new recommendation, it would have made absolutely no difference, because she found it herself, not the routine mammogram.

Only in the window of the second year, specifically the time between when she would have had a second annual mammogram and the time she found the lump would have been the difference, and the effect on the outcome would have been minimal. It might even be that the second annual mammogram would have missed it (it's a lot easier for a doctor to find a lump after the woman finds it herself), which would have resulted in absolutely no difference if she had annual mammograms (more than 4 of 5 lumps are found by the women themselves, not by annual screening, even when there is annual screening).

Breast cancer is a political disease because men don't get it (like AIDS is a political disease because moral people don't get it) (Don't argue). Lung cancer kills far more women than breast cancer, but women aren't screaming that the government doesn't recommend annual lung cancer screening. The government doesn't even recommend that people ever get lung cancer screenings! The government shouldn't recommend any routine screenings for any kind of cancer for anyone who isn't at very high risk.

Did the government recommend these screenings (or) did the doctors and/or health care proffessionals begin all of this upon what you are saying ? Did they just get the government involved and going along with them somehow (or) did the government see this as a job creator within government, and also within the health care industry as they ( the industry) may have been lobbying government for ?

 

[Flopper]

Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.

common sense will tell you that if it's free far more of it will be consumed.
a liberal has no common sense? Imagine having to argue about that?

Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.

some perhaps, but all would abuse it by having state of the art medical care and state of the art or very very expensive funerals.
Again, common sense to all but a liberal.

If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none. That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.

no one says it has to be pure. If we had capitalism costs would be about 10% of what they are now and most could afford it. Those who couldn't could use partial vouchers so the incentive would be to shop and provider's incentive would be to compete.

If you want an example that even a liberal can follow consider China. They instantly went from en masse liberal starvation to getting rich just by switching to some key elements of capitalism.

Still over your head???

What I was saying is that people will not use medical care just because it's free, at least not enough that it would make a dent in the nations healthcare costs. I do agree that sick people will use more healthcare services if it's free or low cost, which is a good thing. Early diagnosis coupled with treatment and preventive care for heart disease and strokes can save 75 billion in healthcare costs; costs of cancer treatments could be radical reduced. Making it more expensive for people to seek treatment for minor problems will only add to our healthcare costs.

 

[Flopper]

I could go on endlessly making these point.

yes but you have to remember you're talking to liberals. Here's a simple enough question even for liberals.

What would happen if you made pork chops free in a supermarket. Would people consume more or less.

That's not a good comparison. Supply and demand for healthcare services are not that simple. If you cut the patients cost for healthcare services, people will go to the doctors more often, however this is the way to reduce the nations healthcare cost because we will be treating more illness in the most cost effective way, in doctor's offices, with drugs, and out patient facilities instead of the most expensive way, emergency rooms and hospitals. We will be diagnosing more diseases in early stages which can drastically reducing costs.

 

[beagle9]

Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.

common sense will tell you that if it's free far more of it will be consumed.
a liberal has no common sense? Imagine having to argue about that?




some perhaps, but all would abuse it by having state of the art medical care and state of the art or very very expensive funerals.
Again, common sense to all but a liberal.

If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none. That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.

no one says it has to be pure. If we had capitalism costs would be about 10% of what they are now and most could afford it. Those who couldn't could use partial vouchers so the incentive would be to shop and provider's incentive would be to compete.

If you want an example that even a liberal can follow consider China. They instantly went from en masse liberal starvation to getting rich just by switching to some key elements of capitalism.

Still over your head???

What I was saying is that people will not use medical care just because it's free, at least not enough that it would make a dent in the nations healthcare costs. I do agree that sick people will use more healthcare services if it's free or low cost, which is a good thing. Early diagnosis coupled with treatment and preventive care for heart disease and strokes can save 75 billion in healthcare costs; costs of cancer treatments could be radical reduced. Making it more expensive for people to seek treatment for minor problems will only add to our healthcare costs.

Yep, you are right, it will only add to the health care cost down the road, especially when something minor turns into something major, in which has been the problem for a long time now in this overcharging/over priced system, that keeps so many away until it's to late to handle their case in a more inexpensive way.

Think about this for a second in comparrison of, what are the repubs accusing of the unemployment rates being lower now than before when they are reported ? They are saying that it's because many have given up (dropped off of the roles, and are not seeking unemployment anymore), and thus they are not counted anylonger in the system, and yet they are not showing up in a job either, so what happened to them I wonder ? Is anyone checking on these people, or are they discarded and hoped to be forgotten about in the scheme of things ? Are the uninsured looked at or hoped to be forgotten about also by the private sector health care industry, and this in the same ways that the unemployed are also forgotten about once they leave the roles or fall off of the grid?

Many of the unemployed have showed up on the disability roles, where as there has been a sky rocketing level of disability enrollements or disability grants made for those who had no where else to turn (what between 45 to 61 years of age maybe?), as is found in a system that had long since abandoned them, or put them between a rock and a hard place in result of all this mess ?

 

[beagle9]

I could go on endlessly making these point.

yes but you have to remember you're talking to liberals. Here's a simple enough question even for liberals.

What would happen if you made pork chops free in a supermarket. Would people consume more or less.

That's not a good comparison. Supply and demand for healthcare services are not that simple. If you cut the patients cost for healthcare services, people will go to the doctors more often, however this is the way to reduce the nations healthcare cost because we will be treating more illness in the most cost effective way, in doctor's offices, with drugs, and out patient facilities instead of the most expensive way, emergency rooms and hospitals. We will be diagnosing more diseases in early stages which can drastically reducing costs.

It's a no brainer, but the greed of a dollar bill keeps people from thinking with any common since anymore.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

yes but you have to remember you're talking to liberals. Here's a simple enough question even for liberals.

What would happen if you made pork chops free in a supermarket. Would people consume more or less.

That's not a good comparison. Supply and demand for healthcare services are not that simple. If you cut the patients cost for healthcare services, people will go to the doctors more often, however this is the way to reduce the nations healthcare cost because we will be treating more illness in the most cost effective way, in doctor's offices, with drugs, and out patient facilities instead of the most expensive way, emergency rooms and hospitals. We will be diagnosing more diseases in early stages which can drastically reducing costs.

It's a no brainer, but the greed of a dollar bill keeps people from thinking with any common since anymore.

its a no brainer that free pork chops means people will buy more and more and even waste some ???

 

[starcraftzzz]

I'm for single payer, too, but it's not free. You should really read something about it other than right wingnut sources.

since the bottom half pay no taxes and the top 1% pay 40% of taxes its in effect free to the majority of voters ! This is like running a kindergarten.

No dumbass the bottom half pay no federal income taxes of which only equal 1/4 of taxes. THe bottom half pay most of the other taxes because those taxes are sales, property, or payroll (of which only taxes income up to 100,000)
So go read something other then Glen Beck you
The reason you think this is like running kindergarten is because you have a brain of a kindergartener