UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Arnold: Universal health coverage


1/9/07 4:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
killer rabbit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 04/20/2004
Posts: 4238
I get all that covered as well. I have good health insurance. What is my incentive other than altruism to want to pay more in taxes for lower quality care for me and my family? In rural areas, there will be little change - the rural poor still won't have transportation to swamp providers. In large urban areas, there will be too few providers and too many patients demanding treatment (sense of entitlement). Why work in NYC dealing with assholes when you can work in Suffolk County for the same pay with healthier people?
1/9/07 4:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
168 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07 04:10 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7062
"Its time for the USA to have a basic Universal Health Care . People with more money can pay for better care if they want." Having a mix of the two systems seems like it could be a good idea. Copy Britain, Canada, Australia etc. in what they do right, while still giving people access to a free market system if they so choose.
1/9/07 4:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
thagefighter
35 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 10/27/2005
Posts: 1662

"People are hesitant to leave jobs and try new careers or open small businesses because they'll lose medical benefits. "

TTT FOR THIS! This is the sinking boat that I am in. I hate my job and have another one lined up, but its for a small company that doesnt have insurance yet. I have a lung disease and cannot go without healthcare.

If this is going through in Cali, I may have to move in a few years! Free Healthcare, Medical MJ, beaches and bitches! Cant go wrong with that combo!

1/9/07 4:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
killer rabbit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 04/20/2004
Posts: 4240
"Its time for the USA to have a basic Universal Health Care . People with more money can pay for better care if they want." So you are admitting that the care will be less than those with health insurance expect right now? Wow, I'm on board. Not. The ultra rich will still have a few exclusive clinics where they can get care. However, pretending that a private health care system could survive Universal Healthcare with the exception of plastic surgery clinics and super-exclusive clinics is amusing to say the least.
1/9/07 4:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
old guard
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 03/24/2005
Posts: 1001
screw the illegals med mal isnt the problem - there is no such thing as a frivilous med mal lawsuit: it costs so much to prosecute a med mal lawsuit that 99.99% are turned away. even with the most meritorious med mal claim the jurors oftentimes dont want to punish the doctor by awarding any compensation. the premiums are high because all insurance premiums are high because the repubs favor and pander to their special interest buddies
1/9/07 4:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4542
"Having a mix of the two systems seems like it could be a good idea. Copy Britain, Canada, Australia etc. in what they do right, while still giving people access to a free market system if they so choose." You can't do this, I don't believe. Suppose a person is signed up under universal health care and needs procedure X. He has to find a doctor that, under the mixed system you're endorsing, that is willing to do procedure X for the same amount that UHC is willing to reimburse him and no more. If people are paying for private insurance out of their own pockets in sufficient quantity to bid up the price of procedure X, then all doctors are going to only accept private insurance for procedure X. Now, you could argue that there won't be that many people who pay for private insurance, but I doubt this is the case since, as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), pretty much all countries with socialized medicine forbid private insurance. The only solution to this would be to remove professional licensing mandates on doctors (something I'm actually in favor of) so that doctors could compete on their qualifications more effectively. Less qualified doctors would end up taking the limited reimbursement from UHC, while the better doctors would accept private insurance.
1/9/07 4:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
killer rabbit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 04/20/2004
Posts: 4245
"The only solution to this would be to remove professional licensing mandates on doctors (something I'm actually in favor of) so that doctors could compete on their qualifications more effectively. Less qualified doctors would end up taking the limited reimbursement from UHC, while the better doctors would accept private insurance." So the poor would get doctors trained in a basement, while the rich get real MD's? Hardly an equitable solution, IMO. At least now the poor get access to real doctors on a limited basis.
1/9/07 5:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cuzz63
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3393
"Having a mix of the two systems seems like it could be a good idea. Copy Britain, Canada, Australia etc. in what they do right, while still giving people access to a free market system if they so choose." I see it working kind of like the public school system. We provide a basic education at tax payers expense and those with better funding send their kids to private schools. The public medical system can use Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants and everybody gets health care. Heck I have good insurance and still end up seeing Physician Assistants from time to time (wonder if they bill my insurance less money?)
1/9/07 8:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4543
"So the poor would get doctors trained in a basement, while the rich get real MD's? Hardly an equitable solution, IMO. At least now the poor get access to real doctors on a limited basis." Are you opposed to rich people currently being able to afford better healthcare? Do you think we should arbitrarily pick a sum over which it is illegal for any person to spend on healthcare?
1/9/07 11:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
George Bush Fancier
52 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2002
Posts: 6475
"You can't do this, I don't believe. Suppose a person is signed up under universal health care and needs procedure X. He has to find a doctor that, under the mixed system you're endorsing, that is willing to do procedure X for the same amount that UHC is willing to reimburse him and no more. If people are paying for private insurance out of their own pockets in sufficient quantity to bid up the price of procedure X, then all doctors are going to only accept private insurance for procedure X." how then do you explain the fact that there are currently doctors who accept Medicaid patients, and the reduced rates of payment thereof? the system proposed for California and passed in Massachusetts expects that the majority of patients will have private health insurance. this insurance may be partially subsidized, or in extreme cases people enrolled in Medicaid-type programs, but generally doctors will be dealing with private insurers. there's not too much difference between our current system and the proposed one, except that the percentage of people insured increases.
1/10/07 9:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
killer rabbit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jan-07
Member Since: 04/20/2004
Posts: 4248
"Are you opposed to rich people currently being able to afford better healthcare? Do you think we should arbitrarily pick a sum over which it is illegal for any person to spend on healthcare?" I have no problem with the rich getting more skilled and better supplied care - free market. However, deregulating the medical industry would be ludicrous. There is a reason not many people go to Mexico for medical care from the US - it sucks. The doctors are not regulated as well as in the US, standards are not universally enforced, etc. Do some google searches on the wonderful results of cheap plastic surgeons from 3rd world countries - some horrific stuff. The average person doesn't have the medical knowledge to determine what provider possesses at least the minimum knowledge to provide good care. As for Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners, generally they are at least as skilled/knowledgeable at general medicine as full doctors. See next post on differences. I usually prefer to see Nurse Practioners, as they tend to be less arrogant and seem to listen more in my experience. Too many doctors seem to want one word answers so their superior intellect can work better.
1/10/07 9:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jan-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4545
"there's not too much difference between our current system and the proposed one, except that the percentage of people insured increases." Well that's exactly the problem. Medicare/Medicaid are on course for a fucking fiscal trainwreck right now; the only reason they've survived this long is that a smaller number of people use the services than belong to the tax base that supports. Imagine the crisis if EVERYONE were on Medicare? And, getting back to the original point, the relatively small number of people allow for a subset of doctors to accept them. Again, I think I'm correct here, but I'd take an example of an existing country with UHC and private insurance co-existing as a reasonable refutation. I do not think the Mass. plan will work as hoped, not at all. So far, all they've done is put some pens to paper.
1/10/07 10:01 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
killer rabbit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jan-07
Member Since: 04/20/2004
Posts: 4249
One of the main differences between P.A. education and physician education is not the core content of the curriculum but the amount of time spent in school. The length of a P.A. program is about two thirds that of medical school. Physicians also are required to do an internship, and the majority also complete a residency in a specialty; P.A.'s do not have to undertake an internship or residency. A doctor has complete responsibility for the care of the patient; P.A.'s share that responsibility with the doctors. Doctors are independent practitioners; P.A.'s practice medicine under the supervision of a physician. http://www.colby.edu/health.serv/pa.html A nurse practitioner (NP) is a registered nurse who has completed advanced education (generally a minimum of a master's degree) and training in the diagnosis and management of common medical conditions, including chronic illnesses. Nurse practitioners provide a broad range of health care services. Nurse practitioners provide much of the same care provided by physicians and usually maintain close working relationships with physicians. An NP can serve as a patient's regular health care provider and see patients of all ages. The core philosophy of the field is individualized care. Nurse practitioners focus on patients' conditions as well as the effects of illness on the lives of the patients and their families. NPs make prevention, wellness, and patient education priorities. This can mean fewer prescriptions and less expensive treatments. Informing patients about their health care and encouraging them to participate in decisions are central to the care provided by NPs. In addition to health care services, NPs conduct research and are often active in patient advocacy activities. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061230064944AA0S8e5 Hardly lesser care than a doctor. Highly trained professionals who are focused on patient care, rather than some pet research project at the hospital.
1/11/07 11:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
thuglife
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jan-07
Member Since: 02/18/2004
Posts: 1684
"screw the illegals med mal isnt the problem - there is no such thing as a frivilous med mal lawsuit: it costs so much to prosecute a med mal lawsuit that 99.99% are turned away. even with the most meritorious med mal claim the jurors oftentimes dont want to punish the doctor by awarding any compensation. the premiums are high because all insurance premiums are high because the repubs favor and pander to their special interest buddies"

Source?
1/11/07 11:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ted Bennett
257 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5180

You have to ask for a source after he said 99.99%? That wasn't an obvious enough giveaway it was pulled from thin air? :-)

I know several attorneys who do medical malpracatice, and believe me when I tell you they have little problem getting juries to bitch-slap docs who genuinely screwed up (e.g., did surgery while drunk or high, etc.).

And about frivolous suits - oh, yes, indeed, *plenty* of those exist - all you need is a pissed-off patient and a starving lawyer. Doesn't matter if the clinician is at fault. Hell, one reason why I wouldn't do child custody evaluations is because when you do them, a large percentage of the time you will conclude that one parent is more fit than the other, which *immediately* makes that "less fit" parent want to sue you, esp. if they lose custody. There's a reason why CCE psychologists have insurance rates that are sky-high compared to psychologists in general.

1/11/07 1:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
thuglife
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jan-07
Member Since: 02/18/2004
Posts: 1688
Yea, i know. Im just polite though:)
1/11/07 2:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
old guard
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jan-07
Member Since: 03/24/2005
Posts: 1005
thuglife: i run the personal injury dept at a large law firm that does malpractice. i have seen this up front and personal. i have talked to many jurors. i know very few attorneys that do med mal these days. it is very expensive to prosecute these cases and it's a crap shoot at trial. thanks for being polite
1/11/07 3:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ted Bennett
257 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5185

old guard - where are you, if you don't mind my asking?

I wonder if my experience is different from yours because I've come up in Louisiana and Mississippi, where (until recently) it seemed like open season on anyone who pissed off a patient.

1/11/07 4:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
old guard
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jan-07
Member Since: 03/24/2005
Posts: 1006
ted, i'm in california
1/11/07 4:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Entreri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jan-07
Member Since: 12/25/2005
Posts: 3864
He'll terminate disease, there wont be any need for Health Care.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.