While I am generally a mild lefty, I have been truly torn on this topic. My wife, a healthcare professional, is radically opposed to any form of universal/“socialist” forms of healthcare policy/organization. This seems like relatively objective and eye opening study to me. If anything, I’d wager a guess that The Business Roundtable, who sponsored the study, is right leaning.
I am coming from the “right” side of the spectrum. I see a need for all legal Americans to have health care available, even those that can’t afford it. If the doctors don’t like it, and they won’t, they can go practice somewhere else. I’m sure they will be welcomed in the Sudan.
No one should be forced into bankruptcy nor should they have to chose what fingers to save/lose because of cost.
I am coming from the “right” side of the spectrum. I see a need for all legal Americans to have health care available, even those that can’t afford it. If the doctors don’t like it, and they won’t, they can go practice somewhere else. I’m sure they will be welcomed in the Sudan.
No one should be forced into bankruptcy nor should they have to chose what fingers to save/lose because of cost.
LOL…how about Dr’s can pick their clients and deny business to anyone they want like a resturaunt? Then, folks like you we could ask to go get care in Sudan.
I am coming from the “right” side of the spectrum. I see a need for all legal Americans to have health care available, even those that can’t afford it. If the doctors don’t like it, and they won’t, they can go practice somewhere else. I’m sure they will be welcomed in the Sudan.
No one should be forced into bankruptcy nor should they have to chose what fingers to save/lose because of cost.
LOL…how about Dr’s can pick their clients and deny business to anyone they want like a resturaunt? Then, folks like you we could ask to go get care in Sudan.
All’s fair. I am one of the “lucky” ones that still can afford health care. My .02 says nobody is voluntarily going to the Sudan.
No one should be forced into bankruptcy nor should they have to chose what fingers to save/lose because of cost.
Actually no matter what system you choose these decisions will have to be made. This in fact is the problem with US system, we DO NOT make these decisions.
If an 80 year old, with cancer and an estimated 2 weeks to live ends up getting a finger lopped off in a car accident does it make sense to re attach it? My guess is that in the US we would probably spend thousands of dollars doing exactly that.
All resources are limited and that includes health resources. As we get better and better at keeping people alive we can keep them alive, longer and longer under worse and worse conditions, but that costs more and more. Eventually the system becomes unsustainable, and that’s were we are at now.
The only questions are, are we going to start accepting health resources are limited and if we do not, who’s going to go bankrupt, the individual or the state?
Matt, in this country we give Chemo and cancer care, hell even sex changes to folks who are in prison on death row. Remember a few years back a guy tried to off himself the night before his execution, doctors saved him, patched him up - and then they killed him hours later.
What do you think will happen to the doctors/hospitals if they have to provide health care for free.
Who the heck proposed to do that? Nice strawman argument.
What do you think will happen to the doctors/hospitals if they have to provide health care for free.
they currently are which is why hospitals are closing. give everyone insurance and you solve the problem.
The problem is that people actually believe that if government steps in that we will be able to continue the same practices and miraculously the prices will drop. Sorry that’s not going to happen. One of the major reasons many “Universal” systems are cheaper is because they have adopted a stronger “Return on investment” approach to their healthcare.
That being said they also have a more sensible approach to lawsuits as well, but that’s a completely different subject.
The problem is that people actually believe that if government steps in that we will be able to continue the same practices and miraculously the prices will drop. Sorry that’s not going to happen. One of the major reasons many “Universal” systems are cheaper is because they have adopted a stronger “Return on investment” approach to their healthcare.
That being said they also have a more sensible approach to lawsuits as well, but that’s a completely different subject.
~Matt
ding ding, and the TLA owns a lot of dems.
I think it would be good if the govt forced a common claim form and process on the medical system (medical billing is nuts, and incredibly expensive), limited liability for providers, force drug companies to charge the same here as they do elsewhere for meds, blah, blah, blah. One thing is certain, big fights to ensue because big money is involved.
All resources are limited and that includes health resources. As we get better and better at keeping people alive we can keep them alive, longer and longer under worse and worse conditions, but that costs more and more. Eventually the system becomes unsustainable, and that’s were we are at now.
I thought I had stumbled onto a debate about federal bailouts of the big banks for a second.
I think it would be good if the govt forced a common claim form and process on the medical system (medical billing is nuts, and incredibly expensive)
Agreed, but isn’t it the government that is keeping this from happening mostly at the state level? I just don’t see BC & BS thinking that having 50 different insurance groups, one for each state, as a good idea. I always thought it was the state laws that basically made claims so different from state to state that you basically had to have different companies.
limited liability for providers,
Agreed. Very pervasive and expensive. Not only do you have to look at the cost of the lawsuits but the overall insurance cost that protects the providers, equipment manufactures, drug manufacturers etc etc from those lawsuits.
force drug companies to charge the same here as they do elsewhere for meds,
Can’t really do that unless they are selling in the same market. If in the UK the manufacturers are somewhat protected from lawsuits and here they are not they must cover the extra cost. Compound that even further where they also likely have to deal with 50 different set of regulations rather than one per country and it’s easy to see why drugs are more expensive in the US.
**One thing is certain, big fights to ensue because big money is involved. **
What do you think will happen to the doctors/hospitals if they have to provide health care for free.
they currently are which is why hospitals are closing. give everyone insurance and you solve the problem.
That’s a too easy solution. Instead we will kick and scream for 10 more years as health care gets worse. Then we will complain that nobody did anything. It’s the American way.
Great idea, how would you like doctors trained in Sudan working here?
If they can meet our standards the more the merrier. In fact a way to lower health care costs is to have more Doctors. Then we might have some competition for services, you remember supply and demand, right? As it stands today it’s cheaper to go abroad for some surgeries then it is to stay here. I expect that to increase.
I wholly support tort reform, however, based upon the data, lawsuits are not the main “driver” of malpractice insurance. There was a WSJ article (a few years back) that talked about the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance, and looked at actual claims and awards. What they figured out was that the total claims + awards was pretty flat, but there was tremendous consolidation of insurance companies, which was the primary cost driver.
Based upon my wife’s institution, 1/3 of every $ is non/underpayment, 1/3 of every $ goes to the “administration required to deal with insurance companies”…
That’s a too easy solution. Instead we will kick and scream for 10 more years as health care gets worse. Then we will complain that nobody did anything. It’s the American way.
I’m not sure giving insurance to anyone that manages to arrive here is the “Easy solution”. In many cases hospitals are forced to give free health care to many patients that don’t pay into the system. I’m pretty sure just “Giving them health care” would cause all of us to pay even more.
There is something to be said about the idea that they would now be using GP medicine rather than ER medicine, but they’d also likely be using much more of it.
I’m 100% behind a plan that covers everyone, but I’d fight tooth and nail against a plan that does it the wrong way. The current system is heads and shoulders above a “universal plan” that is improperly implemented.
