Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[The Rabbi]

They whine about government making decisions on healthcare but have no problem that a clerk making 12 dollars an hour working for an insurance company can make the call on health care base on insurance company rules. Health insurance companys do NOTHING but skim off the top. But that's OK with the blunt skulls

You're not very bright or well informed, are you?

They must be a commie organization huh goober

The current proposals for U.S. health care reform focus mostly on extending insurance coverage, decreasing the growth of costs through improved efficiency, and expanding prevention and wellness programs. The policy debate has been overwhelmingly centered on the first two of these elements. Achieving universal insurance coverage in the United States would protect households against undue financial burdens at the same time that it was saving an estimated 18,000 to 44,000 lives

MMS: Error

Like I said, you're not what anyone would call a "deep thinker", are you?

 

[Iceweasel]

Admin for US healthcare costs 30% of all healthcare spending. Put this into perspective. The US govt pays 50% of healthcare costs, so that means that 60% of what you put into your healthcare through insurance, goes on admin, not on treating anything, not on doctors, but on insurance companies and things like that.

Where do you get this from? I don't recall the government ever paying for half of my costs. Except when I was in the military, but then it was 100%.

In Canada it's 15% on admin. So that's 15% of what is spend is going on unnecessary expenditure just to line the pockets of people.

A friend is a nurse and asked the doctor and he said his Canadian doctor friend had two office clerks. He has five. The reason is the government red tape. He didn't hire more workers to jack up the bill, he hired them to handle the mountain of paperwork.

How much money then goes on pure corruption? Things like drug companies getting doctors to give the more expensive drug because the patient doesn't care, the insurance company is "paying for it", the insurance company doesn't care because those paying the insurance fees are paying for it.
It leads to a weird mentality, it leads to corruption, it leads to spending too much.

So does lawsuits and malpractice insurance. Medicine today, unfortunately, has shifted priorities to covering their asses. They have to. That's why there's so much testing, retesting, forms, etc. We need reform but more government was the wrong answer.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Without profit there would be no innovation. What kind of idiotic op is this.

 

[boedicca]

Bucsy argues that Health Care should not be profit driven.

Well, consider the alternative: Health Care being politically influenced for the benefit of Big Government Cronies.

Those are the two choices.

I'll take profit over political power any day.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wouldn't want it? Why? Because he was clearly a Republican?

What about the good Samaritan? Didn't he help those who others wouldn't help?

As for whether he'd want govt getting people on welfare, no one can really claim anything because hell, welfare didn't exist back then.

What does it have to do with being a Republican? And what, precisely, do you think the connection is between personal, individual charity and compassion and bloated, monolithic government programs?

As a matter of fact, anyone who's bothered to study the Bible and think independently for a few minutes can see that the dependency and sense of personal irresponsibility fostered by welfare is very much contrary to what the Bible teaches us to strive for in our lives and our society. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Doesn't have anything to do with being a Republican. I was making a point that someone was trying to claim that Jesus would clearly be interested in something that comes from the Republican Party, when in actual fact the issue would not have been relevant 2000 years ago. It was sarcasm.

No, you were making the point that you can't pull your head away from partisan politics and out of your ass. Did anyone say anything about Republicans? No? But you just HAD to kneejerk over to that and drag it into the conversation, as though it has ****-all to do with it.

It was bullshit, and you've been called on it. How's about you wait for someone ELSE to introduce the "R" word before you start blathering about it as though it's the topic to anyone but you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then how come the US has better survival rates for those "serious problems"? How come you're more likely to survive a bout with any type of cancer you'd care to name in the US than in any of the countries of western Europe? Why is it that people dying or becoming permanently disabled while waiting for surgery and treatment in the UK became an open scandal not that long ago?

There are lots and lots of issues with what you're saying. Firstly US healthcare is good.
However it's not as good as the money being pumped in, and it's not as good as the money going on corruption.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life expectancy, the US is 35th in the world. This of course isn't all about healthcare, this is about lifestyle, food as well as healthcare. But life expectancy is high.

List of countries by cancer rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US has a high rate of cancer, which doesn't mean more people get cancer though, it just means, perhaps, that more people actually end up in hospital being diagnosed with cancer.

Where healthcare under government control can be a problem is when the government messes around with healthcare.
The UK, as an example, saw the Tories basically not bother with it that much until they were kicked out in 1997. Then Labour pumped in loads of spending, but were making mistakes along the way, though cancer survival rates increased, then the Tories get back in and are destroying it.
Seeing as the US is low tax, and yet the govt spends the same percentage of GDP, you have to wonder why the Tories are reducing health spending.

But the point still being made is, you can have private healthcare on top of the NHS in the UK and it won't cost you more than the US for a similar service.

First of all, life expectancy and likelihood of getting cancer have two things to do with the healthcare system of the country in question: **** and all.

Second of all, you cited Wikipedia to me as a decisive source of knowledge. Your argument is automatically invalid, as are you, and you immediately forfeit any right to have your posts read, responded to, or in any way acknowledged by anything other than "Wikipedia scholar. What an ignorant dumbfuck! "

Thanks for trying, however lame it was. You may now go wave your white flag somewhere else. Buh bye.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First of all, life expectancy and likelihood of getting cancer have two things to do with the healthcare system of the country in question: **** and all.

Second of all, you cited Wikipedia to me as a decisive source of knowledge. Your argument is automatically invalid, as are you, and you immediately forfeit any right to have your posts read, responded to, or in any way acknowledged by anything other than "Wikipedia scholar. What an ignorant dumbfuck! "

Thanks for trying, however lame it was. You may now go wave your white flag somewhere else. Buh bye.

Oh, well, the insults come out, you show your true colors. I really don't understand people who just go for the insults, what's the point of going onto a politics message board when you're not even willing to listen to other people?

I didn't say life expectancy and likelihood of getting cancer have much to do with each other, did I? If you're going to make stuff up claiming I said it, then tell me I'm an idiot for saying something that YOU said and not me, well you can draw your own conclusions.

The fact is, what we're talking about isn't the one thing you've brought up, ie, cancer rates in the US being better than other places. It's about the healthcare system and whether it should be private or not.
But if you want to reduce the scope to one little area, and then pretend that this somehow wins you some kind of victory, it doesn't.

I cited wikipedia. Do you know why? Because I don't have forever to write a post, I don't have unlimited patients to go out there and find a small little fact that can be difficult to find, but pops up on wikipedia.
If you think using wikipedia makes something automatically invalid, then this debate could be quite hard, seeing as I'd probably waste half your sources for being biased too, and all we'd end up doing is talking about whether sources are good or bad.
If you have a problem with the source that I used, and where it come from, ie, the source wikipedia used, then by all means say it. Maybe the source isn't good. I'm willing to use sources that are a little dodgy because I'm not writing a thesis, it doesn't need to be 100% perfect, I might even be wrong.

But i'll tell you this, I'm a lot better off using wikipedia as a source that you who goes and uses insults as a debating tool. They call it hypocrisy to do what you've done. Expect high standards and then resort to the lowest of the low.

But hey, if you're not willing to debate, I don't really care. It could have been good, but you pulled the insults out of the bag, and I really, REALLY don't come on here to be insulted by people with minds too small to rise above such carp.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you were making the point that you can't pull your head away from partisan politics and out of your ass. Did anyone say anything about Republicans? No? But you just HAD to kneejerk over to that and drag it into the conversation, as though it has ****-all to do with it.

It was bullshit, and you've been called on it. How's about you wait for someone ELSE to introduce the "R" word before you start blathering about it as though it's the topic to anyone but you?

Wait, you know NOTHING about me, but you seem to be in the mood for jumping to massive conclusions. So to suggest that someone who comes on here, criticizes BOTH PARTIES, calls for PR to increase the number of parties, and you're accusing me of "partisan politics", oh please.

You know, someone did say something about the Republican Party. I DID. Get over it. I was making a comment using sarcasm, not my fault if you can't understand this.

 

[Redfish]

Free healthcare for every person in the usa, citizens, illegals, guests, tourists, et. Al

free, do you hear me----------------free

 

[P@triot]

.

It doesn't have to be a binary, either/or situation.

I want companies competing for my business, knowing full well that such competition breeds innovation, efficiencies and progress. The last thing I want is a massive, bureaucratic monopoly in charge of the health care of myself and my loved ones. Good gawd.

At the same time, the inefficiencies inherent in such a bureaucracy can be acceptable to a point in providing foundational preventive and diagnostic services for everyone, which is something we don't have now. Recognizing problems early saves significant money and prolongs and improves lives. A healthier populace is both good economics and an improved general standard of living.

Unfortunately, both "major" parties have their heads squarely up their ass on this issue and we appear to be stuck with what we have.

.

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

Yeah...we might see Single Payer a lot faster.

It's fall down hilarious that you believe health insurance is "in the hands of employers" (as if there was some kind of mandate before Obamacare).

Many businesses don't offer health insurance. And many individuals do buy their own health insurance (I've known more than a couple).

Welcome to reality - it's the place that your liberal masters lie to you about. You might want to stop opening your web browser to Media Matters and MSNBC.

 

[Redfish]

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

Yeah...we might see Single Payer a lot faster.

It's fall down hilarious that you believe health insurance is "in the hands of employers" (as if there was some kind of mandate before Obamacare).

Many businesses don't offer health insurance. And many individuals do buy their own health insurance (I've known more than a couple).

Welcome to reality - it's the place that your liberal masters lie to you about. You might want to stop opening your web browser to Media Matters and MSNBC.

seawytch gets her news from----------the grinning lesbian.com

 

[Iceweasel]

If you think using wikipedia makes something automatically invalid, then this debate could be quite hard,

Wikipedia is open for editing so it isn't reliable except maybe for a starting point. It isn't automatically invalid, it just isn't automatically valid. And what debate? I haven't seen any reason or method available to make health care unprofitable, except for a total government takeover. If so, you can expect it to go the way of everything else run by the government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you think using wikipedia makes something automatically invalid, then this debate could be quite hard,

Wikipedia is open for editing so it isn't reliable except maybe for a starting point. It isn't automatically invalid, it just isn't automatically valid. And what debate? I haven't seen any reason or method available to make health care unprofitable, except for a total government takeover. If so, you can expect it to go the way of everything else run by the government.

I understand what wikipedia is, and I know that no university paper is going to be valid with such a source, hence why I wouldn't use it in a university paper, if I ever had another chance to write one. However this is a forum where actually using evidence is more often than not ignored. Actually going out of your way and spending ages to find a credible source to then have a muppet turn around and tell you they don't care, or swear at you, or some other useless junk is simply not worth it.

Make the point, back it up with some visual and you've already done more than half the people on this board will ever do. But yet you still get criticised for it.

Healthcare would probably be unprofitable if people didn't go to your hospital because it was so bad.

However some govts actually do make it work. Mainly by keeping themselves out of the system and letting people who know what they're doing do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you think using wikipedia makes something automatically invalid, then this debate could be quite hard,

Wikipedia is open for editing so it isn't reliable except maybe for a starting point. It isn't automatically invalid, it just isn't automatically valid. And what debate? I haven't seen any reason or method available to make health care unprofitable, except for a total government takeover. If so, you can expect it to go the way of everything else run by the government.

Dumbfuck did have one point, though. By virtue of requiring REAL sources, instead of Wiki-"someone posted it on the Interwebz, so it must be true!"-pedia, having a debate with me IS quite hard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you think using wikipedia makes something automatically invalid, then this debate could be quite hard,

Wikipedia is open for editing so it isn't reliable except maybe for a starting point. It isn't automatically invalid, it just isn't automatically valid. And what debate? I haven't seen any reason or method available to make health care unprofitable, except for a total government takeover. If so, you can expect it to go the way of everything else run by the government.

Dumbfuck did have one point, though. By virtue of requiring REAL sources, instead of Wiki-"someone posted it on the Interwebz, so it must be true!"-pedia, having a debate with me IS quite hard.

Says someone who's only response seems to be insulting.

 

[Steven_R]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit.

Whats the answer? Im not sure. People have to get paid for their work, yes. But the HUGE profits being raked in by the pharma companies, hospitals, doctors, etc, at the expense of what?

I recently read of a new pill that can literally cure Hepatitis C. But....the pills are $1,000 each, and a person would need many of them, making the cost prohibitive to insurance companies.

So you have a big pharma company who developed the very expensive pill; And hospitals who can give the very expensive pill; And insurance companies who may have to pay for the pill. And insurance companies don't wanna pay for it.

Just one of many countless examples of how we humans COULD save or help someone.....but, is it profitable? The profit seems to matter more than the end result lately, and it is a bunch of nonsense.

The pure greed of this nation's population is what will destroy us. Not some cavemen in the Middle East.

While we're at it...

Everyone needs food. Farmers and grocery stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs clothing. Clothing designers and stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs housing. Building supply stores and contractors should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.

Right? I mean if we're going down this road, let's go down it.

 

[Redfish]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit.

Whats the answer? Im not sure. People have to get paid for their work, yes. But the HUGE profits being raked in by the pharma companies, hospitals, doctors, etc, at the expense of what?

I recently read of a new pill that can literally cure Hepatitis C. But....the pills are $1,000 each, and a person would need many of them, making the cost prohibitive to insurance companies.

So you have a big pharma company who developed the very expensive pill; And hospitals who can give the very expensive pill; And insurance companies who may have to pay for the pill. And insurance companies don't wanna pay for it.

Just one of many countless examples of how we humans COULD save or help someone.....but, is it profitable? The profit seems to matter more than the end result lately, and it is a bunch of nonsense.

The pure greed of this nation's population is what will destroy us. Not some cavemen in the Middle East.

While we're at it...

Everyone needs food. Farmers and grocery stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs clothing. Clothing designers and stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs housing. Building supply stores and contractors should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.

Right? I mean if we're going down this road, let's go down it.

LOL, you just ran all of the libs out of the thread. Reality always drives them off to hide behind a tree.

 

[The T]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit.

Whats the answer? Im not sure. People have to get paid for their work, yes. But the HUGE profits being raked in by the pharma companies, hospitals, doctors, etc, at the expense of what?

I recently read of a new pill that can literally cure Hepatitis C. But....the pills are $1,000 each, and a person would need many of them, making the cost prohibitive to insurance companies.

So you have a big pharma company who developed the very expensive pill; And hospitals who can give the very expensive pill; And insurance companies who may have to pay for the pill. And insurance companies don't wanna pay for it.

Just one of many countless examples of how we humans COULD save or help someone.....but, is it profitable? The profit seems to matter more than the end result lately, and it is a bunch of nonsense.

The pure greed of this nation's population is what will destroy us. Not some cavemen in the Middle East.

While we're at it...

Everyone needs food. Farmers and grocery stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs clothing. Clothing designers and stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs housing. Building supply stores and contractors should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.

Right? I mean if we're going down this road, let's go down it.

LOL, you just ran all of the libs out of the thread. Reality always drives them off to hide behind a tree.

Licking their wounds...regrouping planning vengeance. It's who they are. And they say WE are the nasty ones?

 

[frigidweirdo]

While we're at it...

Everyone needs food. Farmers and grocery stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs clothing. Clothing designers and stores should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.
Everyone needs housing. Building supply stores and contractors should be non-profits. To do otherwise is just plain greedy.

Right? I mean if we're going down this road, let's go down it.

Heard this one on here before.

There's a big difference between food, clothes and housing and healthcare.

But i guess trying to make everything really nice and simple allows you to treat everything the same.

When people get cancer, it can be life and death. People who work a normal job can afford food, they can afford housing and clothes, they're a part of every day life. Cancer isn't a part of every day life for most people, but when it happens, it happens hard.

Do you see the difference?

 

[frigidweirdo]

LOL, you just ran all of the libs out of the thread. Reality always drives them off to hide behind a tree.

Er..... I guess for some this is just a game.