Originally posted by Eladar I see nothing wrong with people seeing nurses and PA's for most doctor's visits. If you are seeing a doctor to receive a perscription to cure your poison ivy, then you are paying too much. Have a doctor available if a PA or nurse can't handle it, but if they can, then let them. Charge the patient accordingly.
How about instead of mandated insurance, I'll choose who I what I want to purchase and who I want to see. I'll pay a doctor for my treatment. You can pay a nurse, a physicians assistant or a clergyman or a witch doctor or a veterinarian or a guy who works in a tattoo parlor or anyone else who you think knows as much as the doctor. However, I do resent that you want to dilute the standard of care that I get since I am willing to pay for it.
Originally posted by quackquack How about instead of mandated insurance, I'll choose who I what I want to purchase and who I want to see. I'll pay a doctor for my treatment. You can pay a nurse, a physicians assistant or a clergyman or a witch doctor or a veterinarian or a guy who works in a tattoo parlor or anyone else who you think knows as much as the doctor. However, I do resent that you want to dilute the standard of care that I get since I am willing to pay for it.
I'm just suggesting other options. If you have the money, you can get all the attention you want. The rich can always get great medical attention. My suggestion is for the rest of us.
Originally posted by badmoon I have an ailment or two that require preventative measurements like colonoscopies (got ulcerative colitis but who's asking), Those exams cost about $3000. Under your idea I don't see how that would be covered making me vulnerable to colon cancer.
Once you hit 5K for the year, your insurance would kick in. One other thing you should take into consideration is that the procedure will likely cost less money once the pre-pay policies are no more. Competition will drive down the costs so that people like you can actually afford the procedure.
This likely not true. Group insurance coverage is generally cheaper than individual coverage, even if you “save up” to pay the difference. Also, the ability to “save up” is a function of income too. In any event, you’d likely have to be paid more in wages than the cost of the group health premium in order to come out even.
[Note: I am not addressing tax issues here, between received wages and deferred wages.][/b]
If today's group insurance coverage is no more and companies, competition will drive down prices. Everyone will be on the same playing field, which means special pricing for special people will no longer exist. Now that certain people are not getting sweet deals, the rest of us will pay less because we aren't paying to make up for the other's special deals.
Originally posted by Eladar More expensive health care decreases the money we have to spend on something else. More expensive health care makes it impossible to have universal coverage in the US. We simply can't afford to cover people when US health care is so expensive. The only way we can cover everyone is for prices to go down.
I don't think I ever said people should be without ...[text shortened]... fford the better things in life. Health care is no different, even in today's enviroment.
Yes, and one way to reduce prices is by nationalizing health care.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Yes, and one way to reduce prices is by nationalizing health care.
I agree, but I don't think that nationalizing health care would work in the US. All of a sudden, doctors and nurses would be taken out of the private sector and would be working for the government. All of sudden most medical professionals would suffer the same fate as teachers, not being paid enough for what they do so that everyone can receive services. The treatment people would receive would be a 'dumbed down' version of what people with insurance get today.
Even if we can pay for it, we do not have the facilities to give everyone all the treatment they could use. Every solution has its own problems.
My proposal is based on private enterprise and individual responsibility. It is not designed to ensure that all get care. It is based on the idea that in the end more people will get better care because each person is responsible for himself. Each person is pulling more or less his own weight. These are the priniciples upon which the US was founded and until as of late functioned.
Originally posted by Eladar I agree, but I don't think that nationalizing health care would work in the US. All of a sudden, doctors and nurses would be taken out of the private sector and would be working for the government. All of sudden most medical professionals would suffer the same fate as teachers, not being paid enough for what they do so that everyone can receive services. T ...[text shortened]... ht. These are the priniciples upon which the US was founded and until as of late functioned.
Nationalizing health care would significantly reduce overtreatment, which is currently rampant. This would free up plenty of capacity to handle the increased number of patients.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Nationalizing health care would significantly reduce overtreatment, which is currently rampant. This would free up plenty of capacity to handle the increased number of patients.
That's why there is such a problem with having to be put on waiting lists before getting treatment for such things as cancer and knee replacement.
Originally posted by Eladar That's why there is such a problem with having to be put on waiting lists before getting treatment for such things as cancer and knee replacement.
There are waiting lists for cancer treatment? Where is that?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra There are waiting lists for cancer treatment? Where is that?
The UK has been notorious about it. Here is a link that talks about it. In there you will also find talk about how certain people aren't able to get treatment due to age. I guess there is a time when it simply isn't cost effective to help certain people.
Originally posted by Eladar The UK has been notorious about it. Here is a link that talks about it. In there you will also find talk about how certain people aren't able to get treatment due to age. I guess there is a time when it simply isn't cost effective to help certain people.
Isn't screening part of an overall treatment package? No screening, then no treatment. Screening is the first step. But hey, you can google wait times and cancer and you'll see a bunch of links that deal with the UK.
Originally posted by Eladar Isn't screening part of an overall treatment package? No screening, then no treatment. Screening is the first step. But hey, you can google wait times and cancer and you'll see a bunch of links that deal with the UK.
No, this is about screening people who are in a certain risk category but do not yet show any signs of cancer, if I understand the link correctly. According to the link, urgent cases referred to by a GP must be handled within 62 days.
I'm no expert on the UK health care system, although considering that their budget is a mere 40% of US health care expenses I'd say they are doing pretty well. I guess that if their budget were to be increased by 150% it would be sufficient to tackle any waiting list issues, at least on the medium to long term.
If you are going to compare apples to apples, then I'd think you should compare budget to population being serviced.
The US population is nearly 5 times as large as the UK's. If the UK's budget is 40% of the US, but it's population is merely 20% of the US, then the UK is spending twice as much money per person.
Originally posted by Eladar If you are going to compare apples to apples, then I'd think you should compare budget to population being serviced.
The US population is nearly 5 times as large as the UK's. If the UK's budget is 40% of the US, but it's population is merely 20% of the US, then the UK is spending twice as much money per person.
I'm talking, of course, about the budget per person. Why would I be advocating nationalized health care if I knew it was more expensive? I'm advocating it because it is cheaper and more efficient, not because of a moral imperative (although that could be an additional reason).
US Healthcare Hypocrisy
10 Mar '11 13:21
Back to Top