Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[Mathbud1]

Let me see if I can get this straight.

Are you saying that nothing that is good should be profitable? I.e. it is generally good for humanity, and should therefore not be driven by profit?

If that is the case, are you happier to see things that are generally bad for humanity be profitable businesses?

 

[regent]

Most things can be run for profit that's capitalism, and capitalism has given us so much, but some things people need for life such as the nation's defense system and medical care, and those items should not be denied because there is no profit or not enough profit to be derived from the product? Maybe that's why the economies of the industrial nations on this planet are mixtures of socialism and capitalism, and have been for some time. Can you name a purely capitalistic nation?

 

[dblack]

Most things can be run for profit that's capitalism, and capitalism has given us so much, but some things people need for life such as the nation's defense system and medical care, and those items should not be denied because there is no profit or not enough profit to be derived from the product? Maybe that's why the economies of the industrial nations on this planet are mixtures of socialism and capitalism, and have been for some time. Can you name a purely capitalistic nation?

Your premise seems to be that the purpose of government is to provide us with the things we need for life, and that's what I'd challenge. Government employs violence to protect us from violence. We don't need to employ violence to provide for ourselves.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your premise seems to be that the purpose of government is to provide us with the things we need for life, and that's what I'd challenge. Government employs violence to protect us from violence. We don't need to employ violence to provide for ourselves.

I'd say the govt is there for those things which don't work on their own. It's evolved from power to do as the leader wished, to being more about doing things for the people, it's take over 1000 years from the Magna Carta to get this far.

Still it seems to be about selfishness to a large degree, but some people see govt as being about the people working for the people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most things can be run for profit that's capitalism, and capitalism has given us so much, but some things people need for life such as the nation's defense system and medical care, and those items should not be denied because there is no profit or not enough profit to be derived from the product? Maybe that's why the economies of the industrial nations on this planet are mixtures of socialism and capitalism, and have been for some time. Can you name a purely capitalistic nation?

Can you name a purely socialist one that has worked?

Government does some things not well but better than the private sector could. Defense is one. Because government can marshall its tremendous resources to get results. Highways and major projects like Hoover Dam. Weights and measures. Patents. It can use power to create one standard that can be enforced and adjudicated.
Health care isn't like that. Health care does just fine without government intervention, as was the case probably up until WW2. All the other things government provides as entitlements equally suck and are not proper functions of government.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why would someone put up their own capital to produce medical devices when there is no profit? This is probably one of the dumbest arguments Ive ever seen. How are you going to support your family when you're working for free walking the beat, bucs?

 

[regent]

Most things can be run for profit that's capitalism, and capitalism has given us so much, but some things people need for life such as the nation's defense system and medical care, and those items should not be denied because there is no profit or not enough profit to be derived from the product? Maybe that's why the economies of the industrial nations on this planet are mixtures of socialism and capitalism, and have been for some time. Can you name a purely capitalistic nation?

Can you name a purely socialist one that has worked?

Government does some things not well but better than the private sector could. Defense is one. Because government can marshall its tremendous resources to get results. Highways and major projects like Hoover Dam. Weights and measures. Patents. It can use power to create one standard that can be enforced and adjudicated.
Health care isn't like that. Health care does just fine without government intervention, as was the case probably up until WW2. All the other things government provides as entitlements equally suck and are not proper functions of government.

Of course socialism doesn't work alone it has to be mixed with capitalism and that's what most nations have done. The only argument is does a nation have too much capitalism or socialism. or too little. As for medicine, at one time it was cheap and simple, a little bleeding or other treatment and the deed was done but then a vaccines and medicines were created and bingo medicine began to go big time. It is so big time today that it can wipe out a family's savings with one strike or stroke. America will probably have real medical care someday that doesn't destroy the purse as it heals the body.

 

[BobPlumb]

LASIK surgery anyone?

 

[The Rabbi]

Most things can be run for profit that's capitalism, and capitalism has given us so much, but some things people need for life such as the nation's defense system and medical care, and those items should not be denied because there is no profit or not enough profit to be derived from the product? Maybe that's why the economies of the industrial nations on this planet are mixtures of socialism and capitalism, and have been for some time. Can you name a purely capitalistic nation?

Can you name a purely socialist one that has worked?

Government does some things not well but better than the private sector could. Defense is one. Because government can marshall its tremendous resources to get results. Highways and major projects like Hoover Dam. Weights and measures. Patents. It can use power to create one standard that can be enforced and adjudicated.
Health care isn't like that. Health care does just fine without government intervention, as was the case probably up until WW2. All the other things government provides as entitlements equally suck and are not proper functions of government.

Of course socialism doesn't work alone it has to be mixed with capitalism and that's what most nations have done. The only argument is does a nation have too much capitalism or socialism. or too little. As for medicine, at one time it was cheap and simple, a little bleeding or other treatment and the deed was done but then a vaccines and medicines were created and bingo medicine began to go big time. It is so big time today that it can wipe out a family's savings with one strike or stroke. America will probably have real medical care someday that doesn't destroy the purse as it heals the body.

Any socialism is too much. SOcialism destroys economies. Look at the more socialist countries and the more they go that way, the less productive and industrious they become. The opposite is also true. And there are dozens of examples.

Vaccines were created in the 1840s. Medicines were created much earlier. By 1940 we had very sophisticated techniques in many areas. And no government control.
People focus on the fairly small number of people who have enormous medical bills. But most of those are incurred in the last 6 months of life. And most medical expenditures are affordable for a middle class family. An ER visit? It might be a couple of thousand dollars. But typically they will set up a payment plan and let you pay it over a year.
Government mandates and handouts are un-necessary probably 95% of the time.

 

[The Rabbi]

LASIK surgery anyone?

Someone did a study of unregulated medical procedures. No insurance company generally speaking will pay for Lasik. Or breast enhancement. Or a bunch of other plastic surgeries that people do just to look better.
They found that providers got creative about offering financing and procedures became cheaper and better with the competition those areas offered.

 

[kaz]

Your premise seems to be that the purpose of government is to provide us with the things we need for life, and that's what I'd challenge. Government employs violence to protect us from violence. We don't need to employ violence to provide for ourselves.

I'd say the govt is there for those things which don't work on their own. It's evolved from power to do as the leader wished, to being more about doing things for the people, it's take over 1000 years from the Magna Carta to get this far.

Still it seems to be about selfishness to a large degree, but some people see govt as being about the people working for the people.

OMG, that is so naive it's just precious...

 

[bripat9643]

LASIK surgery anyone?

Someone did a study of unregulated medical procedures. No insurance company generally speaking will pay for Lasik. Or breast enhancement. Or a bunch of other plastic surgeries that people do just to look better.
They found that providers got creative about offering financing and procedures became cheaper and better with the competition those areas offered.

The cost of Lazik has come down by a factor of 10 since it was introduced.

 

[bripat9643]

Your premise seems to be that the purpose of government is to provide us with the things we need for life, and that's what I'd challenge. Government employs violence to protect us from violence. We don't need to employ violence to provide for ourselves.

I'd say the govt is there for those things which don't work on their own. It's evolved from power to do as the leader wished, to being more about doing things for the people, it's take over 1000 years from the Magna Carta to get this far.

Still it seems to be about selfishness to a large degree, but some people see govt as being about the people working for the people.

OMG, that is so naive it's just precious...

Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbayah!

 

[alan1]

I could agree with your post to a point.
But it seems like every time the FDA wants to do something about the labeling or Michelle O has some suggestions for cutting back on fatty diets, some people squak. I can't count the threads that cried and complained about that! I know insurance companies also push wellness programs for their policy holders.
Getting back to tort reform, three states have initiated tort reform and saw very little changes in defensive medicine. So I guess the way to go is not hold doctors/hospitals/clinics responsible for anything despite over 400,000 preventable deaths in hospitals annually. * *
Stunning News On Preventable Deaths In Hospitals - Forbes

One proposal I came across is the elimination malpractice lawsuits altogether.
=====================================
"The Patients’ Compensation System, now under consideration in the Georgia and Florida legislatures, would eliminate the possibility of any physician or hospital ever being sued again. It would repeal our broken medical tort system, replacing it with a no-blame, administrative system which allows a panel of experts to hear medical claims in the event that a patient has been harmed.
Patients’ claims would be heard more quickly and they would be compensated in a manner similar to our current legal system. The system would be funded with current medical liability premiums and would not require a tax increase or use taxpayer dollars to administer. Most importantly, doctors could concentrate on practicing medicine without the fear of being sued, thus eliminating the need to order unnecessary tests."
Defensive Medicine: A Cure Worse Than The Disease - Forbes
=========================================

The only problem I have with that is it appears to eliminate the doctor's personal and professional responsibility.

Here is another interesting article:
The High Cost Of American Health Care: You Asked For It
The High Cost Of American Health Care: You Asked For It - Forbes

The bottom line is that the American healthcare system need some serious reform. The status quo is dragging down the American economy, families, individuals and companies with it's high cost.

Isn't that exactly what just happened with the ACA?

No.
The idea was noble but it turned into a huge mess. It was armatures trying to solve a complex situation. Even a bi-partisan approach by politicians is isn't the answer. The best approach would be experts who aren't political or industry whores, to get together and work on reform from within.

They called it healthcare reform, but it was really health insurance changes. That's what happens when a bunch of elitist politicians decide what is best for you and I. They **** things up. All the "reform" they passed and they didn't fix squat. Their solution will be more government intervention to try and fix what they screwed up in the first place. And the dumb-asses will agree. The same dumb-asses that agreed with them the first time.
The government can't fix the stuff it broke in the first place. They broke it because they don't really know what the heck they are doing, so I fail to understand why people continue to hand the same problem back to them thinking they can fix it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[dblack]

Your premise seems to be that the purpose of government is to provide us with the things we need for life, and that's what I'd challenge. Government employs violence to protect us from violence. We don't need to employ violence to provide for ourselves.

I'd say the govt is there for those things which don't work on their own. It's evolved from power to do as the leader wished, to being more about doing things for the people, it's take over 1000 years from the Magna Carta to get this far.

Still it seems to be about selfishness to a large degree, but some people see govt as being about the people working for the people.

Not me. Government is fundamentally coercive in nature, and forcing people to work against their will, regardless of who it's for, is wrong.

 

[alan1]

No.
The idea was noble but it turned into a huge mess. It was armatures trying to solve a complex situation. Even a bi-partisan approach by politicians is isn't the answer. The best approach would be experts who aren't political or industry whores, to get together and work on reform from within.

How old are you again?
So the idea is that the very people who produced this crap are somehow going to do better next time? Keep in mind, Congress still has to vote on a bill. Every special interest will be lined up to get their share, on both sides. The pols will demagog the issue yet again. The Democrats will never admit that Obamacare is a failure.
Your idea of turning over control of 1/6th of the economy to unelected unaccountable geniuses is horrifying. Right out of Hitler's Third Reich.

Right. Let's have a bunch of folks who are clueless put together a plan to reverse a disaster. What a great idea!
Would you have an interior designer try to fix your car? No, you have an auto mechanic fix your car because they know what they are doing and know the workings of the car.
Why have a bunch of stooges, when one can have people that know the workings of our healthcare system and have a clue how to fix it?
How many people would be comfortable with your idea and how many with my idea?

Exactly, why have politicians randomly declare the disaster, then put them in charge of fixing something they know nothing about. But that is exactly what the liberals did.

 

[alan1]

Idiotic OP. People think profit is a dirty word when in fact profit is what has allowed this country to progress and provide the highest standard of living in the world. Look at places where medicine is socialized. You hardly see any medical innovation or new drugs being developed there. Why? No reason to. No money in it.

I agree with Edge, as usual. Where do they breed people this stupid?

Say what? The only people progressing is the top 1%. We don't have the highest standard of living just the illusion of it.

If you live in the USA, chances are that you are in the top 1% of income worldwide.
We are the 1%: You need $34k income to be in the global elite... and half the world's richest live in the U.S. | Mail Online

 

[alan1]

If no profit in healthcare...logic would say no profit in housing, transportation, food, clothing......

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

Haircuts aren't needed daily, do they fall into the same category as health care?

 

[P@triot]

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

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy

The police are not "socialized" - it's the function of law to have a mechanism for enforcing it. Is the law "socialism"?!? Can you make the laws that govern a nation, private?!?

Furthermore, what the hell is your "logic" here even if having law enforcement meant socialism - that because one thing is good socialized, all things would be good socialized?!?

Can you make a rational argument for anything?

 

[alan1]

What difference does it make that health issues can happen "suddenly" and "arbitrarily" while food is a consistent need?

In each case, as long as you plan, you will never have a problem. I've never had cancer (thank God), but I carry health insurance just in case I do.

The difference is actually in the way it's administered.
Other countries also have health insurance that you buy, but they've managed to make it so that the corruption levels just aren't there.
I'm not opposed to health insurance.


What is happening in the US with corruption, massive over spending and so on, shows that it simply isn't working. Why do the for profit food market, housing market and so on work and the healthcare system doesn't?

It appears to me like this.
You don't pay the people who are doing the work. You pay the insurance company. So the people who do the work have no need to keep costs down, there's absolutely nothing that forces them to keep costs down, to reduce administration, to not use expensive drugs, to not do 100 tests when 2 would do etc. All because a patient doesn't choose the hospital or the doctor, and the choice isn't necessarily based on efficiency.

The insurance companies might want to offer lower policies, but they have to pay out for the admin and so on, all of them do, so prices have to be high anyway. They want their profit and they make more profit because of the admin and so on, they have no reason to demand that it goes down. If they're getting 5% and 30% of that 5% comes from corruption, then they're getting 30% more money.

The whole system doesn't work.

Why do you think the health care system wasn't working?
It's always worked for me and for my family. It seemed to be working for all my friends and acquaintances.
The only people it wasn't working for are the random losers trotted out by the politicians and media talking heads when they wanted to push an agenda.