Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    05 Jul '09 03:10 / 1 edit
    Taking the profit motive out of the American healthcare system would clearly be the best way to provide at least a moderate standard of healthcare for all. Consider the untold billions of dollars made by Insurance Companies, HMO's and Drug Companies every year. If these dollars were put to use providing healthcare services, rather than paying for drug advertising, Executive salaries, Executive Bonuses, Private Jets and windfall profits. Would not this be better for everyone?

    There will of course be Conservative elements who will wave the flag, and argue that the profit motive is what made America great. Oh, Really?? Consider what the what the Conservatives have opposed in the past...

    1. Social Security
    2. Child Labor Laws
    3. Minimum Wages
    4. Enviornmental Protection Laws
    5. Worker Safety Laws
    6. Government Banking Laws

    All these things were bitterly denounced by Conservatives as "Socialist"

    And now Conservatives are convinced that these Same Drug Companies, HMO's and Insurance Companies alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation. If you believe this is true, I have a bridge I'll sell you...cheap!!
  2. 05 Jul '09 05:27 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by bill718
    And now Conservatives are convinced that these Same Drug Companies, HMO's and Insurance Companies alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation. If you believe this is true, I have a bridge I'll sell you...cheap!![/b]
    We can simply re-word your last sentence by saying, "
    And now liberals are convinced that the government alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation."

    Here is a good article regarding the issues with nationalized systems around the world.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_europe_health_lessons

    In the article the following concerns are raised.
    1. Critics fear Obama's reforms will lead to more government control over health care and cite problems faced by European health systems of what not to do. For example, in the UK it is estimated that as many as 15,000 people over the age of 75 were dying prematuraly from cancer every year. Experts say that these fatalities could have been avoided if these patients had been diagnosed and treated earlier. The US had much better outcomes than this.
    2. Cost. Experts say that before the US committs itself to footing the bill for universal health care they should consider the cost of it in Europe.
    A World Health Organization survey in 2000 found that France had the world's best health system. But that has come at a high price; health budgets have been in the red since 1988. In 1996, France introduced targets for health insurance spending. But a decade later, the deficit had doubled to 49 billion euros ($69 bilion) "I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose inot health care, its hard to stop the dangerous effects later" said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institute Economique Molinari in France. He sad many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.
    3. Overuse. People begin to seek medical care for any and all ailments putting a greater strain on the overall system.
    4. Cost cutting has caused hospitals to merge and, as a result, specialists harder to find.
    5. Increased medical errors. A 2007 survey found that in some hospitals in Geneva and Lausanne, the rates of medical errors had jumped by up to 40%. Long ranked the world's top four health systems, they dropped to 8th.
    6. Stifle innovation. Experts warn that bureaucracies are slow to adopt new medical technologies. In Britan and Germany, even after new drugs are approved, access to them is complicated because independent agencies must decide if they are worth buying. For example, once the drug Herceptin was proven to be effective in 1988, it was available almost immediately in the US as where it took 4 years to become available in the UK.

    The hell of it, of course, is that US government has already socialized medicine via medicare/medicade. Of course, these are poor peices of legislation and the estimates are that they will go belly up by around 2017. No doubt, they could improve the current system, however, if they do I have a few predictions.

    1. The cost will balloon and surpass the original targets just like in France. This will cause even more rationing and further decrease the quality and availability of health care.
    2. Like social security, the legislation will become a "sacred cow". For example, social security is scheduled to go bust by the year 2030 but no one has been able to reform it despite a few attempts. Likewiise, any legislation that is put forth to give us universal care will be set in stone and reform efforts will be futile.
    3. You will pay for your medical care either way. There is no free lunch even though it will be advertised as "free". For the money you save in cutting out medicine for profit will more than likely go toward those who don't work and are illegals. In fact, it may even surpass the added extra expenses of for profit medicine.
  3. 05 Jul '09 05:48
    Originally posted by whodey
    We can simply re-word your last sentence by saying, "
    And now liberals are convinced that the government alone can best decide who has access to a doctor, or a badly needed medical operation."

    Here is a good article regarding the issues with nationalized systems around the world.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_europe_health_less ...[text shortened]... gals. In fact, it may even surpass the added extra expenses of for profit medicine.
    very good whodey,appreciate the info.dont expect a response from the original poster though.He does what i like to call "drive by's". Unless that is ,he is sending you unsolicited pm's on a topic and resorting to personal attacks and insults when you dont agree w/ him like he does me.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Jul '09 05:50
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    very good whodey,appreciate the info.dont expect a response from the original poster though.He does what i like to call "drive by's". Unless that is ,he is sending you unsolicited pm's on a topic and resorting to personal attacks and insults when you dont agree w/ him like he does me.
    This post of yours comes across as a personal attack and insults directed at the author of the OP
  5. 05 Jul '09 06:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    This post of yours comes across as a personal attack and insults directed at the author of the OP
    feel free to "alert the moderator" if it bothers you so much.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Jul '09 06:09
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    feel free to "alert the moderator" if it bothers you so much.
    It doesn't. I was alerting you.
  7. 05 Jul '09 06:16
    Originally posted by FMF
    It doesn't. I was alerting you.
    just calling out bill718 for his posting style .
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Jul '09 06:20
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    just calling out bill718 for his posting style .
    Just alerting you about your posting style in response to what you allege is his.
  9. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    05 Jul '09 06:27
    Of course, running healthcare systems for profit instead of for health is obviously a much better way of doing things.
    And you'd be a fool and communist to think otherwise.

    If nobody's making money out of it, it's clear it can't work.
    Because everybody in the whole wide world is so shallow that they can only be motivated by financial profit.

    It's so obvious.

    I'm telling my girlfriend tonight: "Hey! Unless you start payin' for these goods, you ain't gettin' any action!"

    And I'm sellin' my VW. I mean, me drivin' around and all that only costs money, it can't be productive. And if it's not productive, it ain't good.

    And I'm gonna petition the government. Us having an army and not participating in any war is not stimulating the economy. Hell, if we're not using bullets, surely someone's not making a profit out of making them! GET THOSE TANKS A-ROLLIN'!

    Just look at those great assests we managed to sell off for peanuts, which may now be disfunctional, but at least someone's rollin' in the profits: railways, post offices, the coal industry.

    I'm so glad I've woken up to smell that coffee, brought to us by third world slave labour.
  10. 05 Jul '09 06:27
    Originally posted by FMF
    Just alerting you about your posting style in response to what you allege is his.
    Now i am just alerting you of what appears to be personal attacks in your posting style.

    "LOL. In terms of political science, the 'right wing' here at RHP - generalissimo, Sam The Sham, eljefejesus, utherpendragon - not exactly a rocket scientists' convention - is way more willy-wavingly hardline and Pavlovian than even the most conservative members of the OAS."
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Jul '09 06:32
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Now i am just alerting you of what appears to be personal attacks in your posting style.

    "LOL. In terms of political science, the 'right wing' here at RHP - generalissimo, Sam The Sham, eljefejesus, utherpendragon - not exactly a rocket scientists' convention - is way more willy-wavingly hardline and Pavlovian than even the most conservative members of the OAS."
    It's my analysis. So there you go. If you feel "personally attacked" by brusque disagreement and dissent over substance and philosophy, then perhaps the net is too rough a place for you. Your post insulting the OP poster and making allegations against him had no substance whatsoever, so I alerted you to that , because heaven forbid you might make yourself seem silly in public.
  12. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    05 Jul '09 06:32
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    generalissimo, Sam The Sham, eljefejesus, utherpendragon - not exactly a rocket scientists' convention -
    It's like the usual bloody suspects.
    You are a bunch of morons though, not one Keyser Soze amongst you.
  13. 05 Jul '09 06:35
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    It's like the usual bloody suspects.
    You are a bunch of morons though, not one Keyser Soze amongst you.
    creep back into your sewer lair
  14. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    05 Jul '09 06:36
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    creep back into your sewer lair
    Ah. See. The wit. You're so witty. I wish I was you.
  15. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    05 Jul '09 07:49
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    [b
    Because everybody in the whole wide world is so shallow that they can only be motivated by financial profit.

    It's so obvious.

    I'm telling my girlfriend tonight: "Hey! Unless you start payin' for these goods, you ain't gettin' any action!"


    [/b]
    Money is just a tool shav, no need to get all frothy. It is a tool to exchange value for value and I put it to you that you have a relationship with your gf precisely for that reason i.e. what you can get out of it, how you can profit from that relationship, and if you're both doing it right she's there for the same reason. Good luck to you both ,may you both profit from your relationship with each other.