Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[frigidweirdo]

No - we have waste, fraud, and abuse because people like you support communism. If you supported constitutional government, we wouldn't have this problem.

Oh, bring out the C word why don't you. This is a great argument. Seeing as I'm not a communist.

 

[P@triot]

You don't get to "see it" any way chief. We have this thing called a "constitution" and it is the law (the highest law in the land in fact). It outlines the rolls and responsibilities of the federal government.

You don't get to dictate to the masses how things should be because that's how you "see it".

Oh, and get this. The UK is currently working on decentralizing their healthcare system because they can't afford it

Well I don't get to dictate to the masses simply because I'm not a politician.

The constitution, well seeing as most Americans treat it as toilet paper when it doesn't suit them and then revere it when it does suit them, what does the constitution mean in the modern day and age?

Then again "The Congress shall have power To....provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Except that you just took part of the Constitution (the 18 enumerated powers - which dictates the actual powers of the federal government) and you combined it with the intro of the Constitution. So you just perverted what was said. You're a liar.

This akin to taking the quote of someone from the beginning of an article "I am a leader of this organization" and combining it with a quote from the end of an article "I hate people who are racist" and proclaiming that they said "I am a racist". It's despicable what you just did. You're a typical liberal who has to lie because you can't support your position with facts.

Oh, and get this. The UK is currently reducing the amount it spends, which is actually lower than the US govt spends on healthcare. Yeah, lower!!

Yeah, they are reducing the amount they spend by decentralizing their failed socialist model! Duh!

And why? Actually it's ideological.

They're destroying the NHS because they want people to spend MORE. Why? Because of healthcare providers are making lots of money, they'll give the Tory Party lots of money in thanks and the Tories will be rich.
They're also destroying education and other such things.

Uh, no liar. They don't want people to spend "more" - they've figured out that they can no longer afford the ignorant socialist model that you support. The few cannot provide for the many. It's just a simple reality.

 

[P@triot]

No - we have waste, fraud, and abuse because people like you support communism. If you supported constitutional government, we wouldn't have this problem.

Oh, bring out the C word why don't you. This is a great argument. Seeing as I'm not a communist.

You want the government to control healthcare. What would you call it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nothing is "administered" in this country. Food is not "administered" in the U.S., it is purchased. Healthcare is not "administered" in the U.S., it is purchased. You made a silly argument and now, rather than admit it was silly, your pride is forcing you to make more and more absurd arguments to defend the initial silly position. If healthcare shouldn't be for profit because it is life or death, then neither should food or housing.

Let's play semantics and ignore the real issue shall we? No, it's a waste of time.

So health care isn't administered? Meaning it has no administration which doesn't take up 6% of the US's GDP?

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise there was no administration.

Also, I'm not making the case that healthcare shouldn't non-profit because it's life and death. I didn't say that, you're just throwing things and claiming I said them.

The reason why I'm against profit healthcare is because it doesn't work properly. One of the reasons it doesn't work properly is because of the life and death situation and a whole host of other things which I have mentioned.

There is no "corruption" in our healthcare system. You buy health insurance, you go to the hospital if/when you need to, you give hand them your health insurance card, case closed. I've done hundreds of times in my life time and I've yet to experience "corruption".

I don't understand now people like you can sit there with a straight face and complain about "corruption" in the private sector while worshiping government - the most heinous and corrupt institution in the world.

Fine, you pay 6% of GDP when you shouldn't do, it's not corruption. What is it then, you play your semantics game and you give me a damn word I can use which explains the unnecessary wasting of 6% of GDP and I'll use that instead.

Oh, and now I "worship government". Right, where did I say this? Oh, I didn't.
In fact if you see what I write in this board you'd probably understand me better. Instead you just assume I'm one of those lefty liberal/communists/socialists/dimoprats or whatever damn term you choose to make up for your inability to understand people and you make a complete fool out of yourself.

The only thing not working is your perception. We just had a massive housing collapse - people walked away from homes because they owed more than they were worth. But somehow, in your mind, the housing market "works" but the healthcare system doesn't? Thus far, you haven't been able to make a consistent argument on anything.

Again, your perception is completely distorted. You're right, I don't pay the people doing the work. But the insurance company does - and to get the business of those insurance companies, the medical community makes deals with them. Good deals. It's very much like a co-op because the insurance companies come to the bargaining table with huge numbers - something none of us would be able to do if we paid directly.

Furthermore, back to your distorted view of how the U.S. operates, you also don't pay the farmer who is doing the work directly. You pay the grocery store (the insurance company in this case) and they pay the farmer (the doctor in this case).

Oh, you don't pay people, the insurance people do. Where does this money magically appear from then?

Oh, they make good deals. Like "hey dude, you let me increase admin by 3% of GDP per year, and I'll do some favors for you too", that's not a good deal.
The deal is this. Insurance company quotes you cover for $1000 for than it should be, they get you a great deal that stops it being $2000 more than it should be.
Oh, well you must be extremely happy with that, you only waste $1000 a years, it's not like you could spend it on something else anyway.

Again, the only thing not working is your perception. Yes, the insurance companies have administrative costs. But you think the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse won't have administrative costs?!?!? You don't think there is administrative costs for Social Security?!?! You don't think there is administrative costs for Medicare?!?! You don't think there is administrative costs for Welfare?!?!

The difference is, the corporation is accountable to their customers. If they are wasteful, they go out of business (just ask the endless businesses that have gone out of business in the Obama economy). The government is accountable to NOBODY and never goes out of business. It's why they have $17 trillion in debt. Show me a business that is $17 trillion in debt chief. It doesn't happen. It has never happened. And it can't happen.

Yes, they have admin costs which just happen to be double those of Canada, and make up 30% of healthcare spending which is 6% of GDP. So that's 3% of GDP being spent unnecessarily lining other people's pockets.

Do I think the federal govt won't abuse the costs? Perhaps. However there are systems out there which are much, MUCH less prone to waste. Finding how to make that work it all part of reform which is essential right now.

Yes, there are admin costs which, if you look closely you'll see what I'm doing.
6% of GDP goes on admin, I'm saying 3% of this is corruption and waste. You see? Do you? I'm not saying admin is unnecessary, i'm saying there is admin in the US which is unnecessary, and this makes up 50% of the admin that goes on.

Yeah, you say the corporation is accountable to their customers. After just having said that you don't actually pay the hospital, the insurance company does.

Yep, it's kind of true. It's your money, but you don't actually give it to the hospital, so the hospital charges whatever the hell they like, the insurance company doesn't give a damn, you're paying them and they just move the money on, you don't care because you're not paying the hospital directly.

You see the problem? There's NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Except that you just took part of the Constitution (the 18 enumerated powers - which dictates the actual powers of the federal government) and you combined it with the intro of the Constitution. So you just perverted what was said. You're a liar.

This akin to taking the quote of someone from the beginning of an article "I am a leader of this organization" and combining it with a quote from the end of an article "I hate people who are racist" and proclaiming that they said "I am a racist". It's despicable what you just did. You're a typical liberal who has to lie because you can't support your position with facts.

Oh, I'm a liar now?

Or maybe you just don't know the consistitution. Jeez, this is getting really pathetic.

I took the beginning of article 1 section 8, then missed out all the irrelevant parts, and then put in the relevant parts.

Shall I spell it out for you?

Section 8
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

1) The Congress shall have Power lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

1.1) The Congress shall have Power to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2) The Congress shall have Power To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3)The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4) The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5) The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6) The Congress shall have Power To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7) The Congress shall have Power To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8) The Congress shall have Power To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9) The Congress shall have Power To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10) The Congress shall have Power To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11) The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12) The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13) The Congress shall have Power To provide and maintain a Navy;
14) The Congress shall have Power To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15) The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16) The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17) The Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18) The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

it's basic, really, really basic grammar.

Oh, and get this. The UK is currently reducing the amount it spends, which is actually lower than the US govt spends on healthcare. Yeah, lower!!

Yeah, they are reducing the amount they spend by decentralizing their failed socialist model! Duh!

The biggest failure in the NHS is that the Conservatives spend their whole time trying to destroy something that actually works.

And why? Actually it's ideological.

They're destroying the NHS because they want people to spend MORE. Why? Because of healthcare providers are making lots of money, they'll give the Tory Party lots of money in thanks and the Tories will be rich.
They're also destroying education and other such things.

Uh, no liar. They don't want people to spend "more" - they've figured out that they can no longer afford the ignorant socialist model that you support. The few cannot provide for the many. It's just a simple reality.

If they can't afford to spend half what the US is spending, then how is going for a US style system going to make it cheaper when the US spends TWICE AS MUCH?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You want the government to control healthcare. What would you call it?

https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/communism

"com·mu·nism

NOUN:
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat."

It isn't Communism, that's for sure.

The theoretical system pointed out there it isn't. Yes, the hospital is owned and controlled by the govt. But it's not the whole system, it's just healthcare and a few other things.

It's probably closer to socialism.

But then, -isms don't really work when it's one thing among many. You can't have Communism with private property for other things. And it's not like all industry is socialised.

You can call it socialised healthcare though, if you like.

However, get this.

In the US, there are quite a few things that are socialised. Like the police,

That's an interesting one too, you should look at Russia in the 1990s and see how that worked out for the Mafias.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lack of food is guaranteed to kill you. Is there a guarantee that you will develop cancer in your lifetime? Do you see how dumb your argument is now?

Let'a make this all rather nice and simple so we don't need to think about anything.

Or perhaps lets look at this properly with our brains.

Yes, lack of food will kill you. That's not the point. The point is we need food daily. The percentage of our lifetime food we eat per day is probably going to be similar to the percentage that day is worth of our lifetime.

We produce food on such a massive scale, there are so many options for eating, from really cheap to really expensive. We don't need the expensive food. It's there if we can afford it or not.
Food can be grown in the garden, it can be produced by others and comes at an affordable price, why? Because otherwise no one would buy it and would grow their own.

Healthcare on the other hand, when you need it, sometimes you need it big time. You can't grow it yourself, you often can't make it yourself. You rely on other people to do this for you, because it can actually be very, very complicated.
Healthcare is also expensive. If you get cancer, you might not be able to afford to pay for treatment, which actually happens in a large part of the world.

The fact, as you pointed out, that healthcare is so arbitrary as well is another factor. Some people just get very unlucky, and it can cost them more money than they actually have.

You seem to make the argument that food is more important than health care and thus needs to be guaranteed.
Housing is essential. People need housing every day but buy it only now and then. Not everyone can build his own house. And housing is expensive. Perhaps housing should be guaranteed.
In all your criteria are absurd, illogical,shifting, and simply wrong. There is no reason to favor healthcare over any other good or service offered on the market.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Lack of food is guaranteed to kill you. Is there a guarantee that you will develop cancer in your lifetime? Do you see how dumb your argument is now?

Let'a make this all rather nice and simple so we don't need to think about anything.

Or perhaps lets look at this properly with our brains.

Yes, lack of food will kill you. That's not the point. The point is we need food daily. The percentage of our lifetime food we eat per day is probably going to be similar to the percentage that day is worth of our lifetime.

We produce food on such a massive scale, there are so many options for eating, from really cheap to really expensive. We don't need the expensive food. It's there if we can afford it or not.
Food can be grown in the garden, it can be produced by others and comes at an affordable price, why? Because otherwise no one would buy it and would grow their own.

Healthcare on the other hand, when you need it, sometimes you need it big time. You can't grow it yourself, you often can't make it yourself. You rely on other people to do this for you, because it can actually be very, very complicated.
Healthcare is also expensive. If you get cancer, you might not be able to afford to pay for treatment, which actually happens in a large part of the world.

The fact, as you pointed out, that healthcare is so arbitrary as well is another factor. Some people just get very unlucky, and it can cost them more money than they actually have.

So is it your premise that medical care should be 'given away'? In other words free from out of pocket expense of any kind?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Lack of food is guaranteed to kill you. Is there a guarantee that you will develop cancer in your lifetime? Do you see how dumb your argument is now?

Let'a make this all rather nice and simple so we don't need to think about anything.

Or perhaps lets look at this properly with our brains.

Yes, lack of food will kill you. That's not the point. The point is we need food daily. The percentage of our lifetime food we eat per day is probably going to be similar to the percentage that day is worth of our lifetime.

We produce food on such a massive scale, there are so many options for eating, from really cheap to really expensive. We don't need the expensive food. It's there if we can afford it or not.
Food can be grown in the garden, it can be produced by others and comes at an affordable price, why? Because otherwise no one would buy it and would grow their own.

Healthcare on the other hand, when you need it, sometimes you need it big time. You can't grow it yourself, you often can't make it yourself. You rely on other people to do this for you, because it can actually be very, very complicated.
Healthcare is also expensive. If you get cancer, you might not be able to afford to pay for treatment, which actually happens in a large part of the world.

The fact, as you pointed out, that healthcare is so arbitrary as well is another factor. Some people just get very unlucky, and it can cost them more money than they actually have.

You seem to make the argument that food is more important than health care and thus needs to be guaranteed.
Housing is essential. People need housing every day but buy it only now and then. Not everyone can build his own house. And housing is expensive. Perhaps housing should be guaranteed.
In all your criteria are absurd, illogical,shifting, and simply wrong. There is no reason to favor healthcare over any other good or service offered on the market.

It is that socialist mentality which tells these libs that government exists not to serve the good of the people as a whole, but to satisfy the needs of individuals or groups.
And if those needs require the taking of something from someone else, they are satisfied. As long as they "get theirs", libs are fine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So is it your premise that medical care should be 'given away'? In other words free from out of pocket expense of any kind?

No.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is that socialist mentality which tells these libs that government exists not to serve the good of the people as a whole, but to satisfy the needs of individuals or groups.
And if those needs require the taking of something from someone else, they are satisfied. As long as they "get theirs", libs are fine.

What are you going on about?

 

[regent]

If you can't make money from sickness what good is it?

 

[Iceweasel]

For a minority of the people yes. The vast majority struggle every day. People say Socialism like its a bad thing,Fact is Socialism has been around in America for a very long time.

That's a lie. Americans have enjoyed some of the best, if not the best quality of life on the globe, ever. Leftists lie about the reality of the matter to push their agendas. I don't define socialism as you do apparently. We've had some social programs but that doesn't make us socialists. Propagandize somebody else.

I tried posting links that prove this 100% false but I can't yet. Western Europe has the US beat in almost every category hands down.

They have had very high unemployment for quite a while. Gas prices that would make us shutter and a high tax rate. You would have to be very selective to make your argument. I lived in Europe, they lived frugally compared to the US.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you can't make money from sickness what good is it?

Substitute:
Hunger
Thirst
Legal trouble
Housing
Car trouble
Computer trouble
etc etc etc

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it a trend of the republicans here to neg rep people and not give a real reason for it? I mean I get neg repped for stating facts that Canada and Western Europe have better living standards based on test scores and happiness and health etc than the US does...

Usually I get a reason, and that reason almost always includes an insult.

 

[regent]

If you can't make money from sickness what good is it?

Substitute:
Hunger
Thirst
Legal trouble
Housing
Car trouble
Computer trouble
etc etc etc

Exactly, a profit can be made from all the items on your list, and until now sickness was a big money-maker too. The difference with the money-makers on your list compared to sickness is that sick people, or their families, need help so badly at times, they'll pay almost any amount for the help. Show me a sick person and I see dollars.

 

[Iceweasel]

Gas prices aren't cheap here either. Unemployment here as well. 2 things I think nationalist type political parties could and would change. I am talking quality of life,education,housing,healthcare,etc. ALL much better in Canada and Europe. Taxes yep they are higher but at least you would see the benefits of those high taxes unlike here where it all goes to military adventures overseas.

No, about the same amount of military expenditures exist as they have been, up a bit but lower in percent age to GNP. Entitlement spending dwarfs military spending.

Gas and unemployment are typical much higher in Europe, even now.

Charts: Is the big US budget problem entitlement spending or defense spending? | AEIdeas

As far as the neg rep thing, I don't do it and think it's a bad feature of the board. Sorry to hear you are being neg repped.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you can't make money from sickness what good is it?

Substitute:
Hunger
Thirst
Legal trouble
Housing
Car trouble
Computer trouble
etc etc etc

Exactly, a profit can be made from all the items on your list, and until now sickness was a big money-maker too. The difference with the money-makers on your list compared to sickness is that sick people, or their families, need help so badly at times, they'll pay almost any amount for the help. Show me a sick person and I see dollars.

And hungry people don't? You ever bought food in an airport, ace?

There is no substance difference between health care and any other good or service. Therefore there is no reason to treat it differently in government policy.

 

[Staidhup]

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.

So maybe you will be so gracious as to share your wisdom on who, what, and how, medical care and R&D will be funded? Profit drives innovation which is driven by demand. You have two issues your attempting to deal with, care facility and universal heath care, so please identify and narrow down your real target here? I assume furthermore you feel Doctors are over paid and research conducted for free?

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism isn't a bad thing but the right wing propaganda machine has sure made people feel like it is. I used to think the same thing until people in my family or myself needed those socialist programs and you see how much we need them to live half way decent lives.

It isn't right wing propaganda that gives socialism a bad name, it's basic economics and history that give it a bad name. Socialism gives the government virtually unlimited power over the individual. That's why totalitarian dictators love it. In fact, it's impossible to have a totalitarian state that isn't socialist.

Furthermore socialism is a bad way to run an economy. We all know how good government is a getting things done, especially when it comes to producing a product or server for consumers. Under socialism the government does everything, and it all sucks. The Trabant is a classic example of the high quality you can expect from the government, and you had to wait years to get one.

In short, socialism sucks and it's just plain evil.