Best Health Care System in the World?? - Page 4

Eric5273 · #31 11-03-2007, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGSTL

Why not? How else are the jackpot awards going to pay for bottom of the class ambulance-chasing lawyers going to pay for their huge homes?

Isn't it sad that there are more trial lawyers vomited out into society each year than physicians?

The two major causes of the financial problems we now have with our medical system are:
1) All MD's are now practicing DEFENSIVE medicine so they won't get sued out of practice if they make one mistake in their entire career; and
2) Insurance companies are permitted to continually raise costs on the insured with lowering reimbursements to doctors. They are following the medicare reimburesments down, down, down. That spread is jackpot profit for the insurance companies.

For-profit medicine launches the best and the brightest out of college and straight into Medical school. Historically, the smartest kids wound up saving your lives with every hospital visit. With physician compensation falling, those summa cum laude college grads are now going into Wall St or some other place where the money is better. We're heading to a time when Med Schools will be forced to accept your C student from college to keep up enrollment. THAT will be your future vascular surgeon, radiologist, cardiologist, etc... But at least the insurance companies and trial lawyers are fat!

How many more years do you think your ER doc, paying $47,000 per year on malpractice insurance while he treats illegals and the indigent for free, is going to practice as his compensation drops $20K per year - year after year??? You wanna see lines... Oh, and when you finally get to the head of the line, you're likely to see a med student, intern, or resident if you're lucky. Welcome to the VA.

You may wish to know that NONE of the Democratic presidential candidates are suggesting that Doctors practices become socialized. I say this because of the comment by your Avatar.

What some of the candidates (and Michael Moore) are proposing is a system of regulation and a single payer with fixed rates. What those rates are is up for discussion, but I'm sure they are not looking to bankrupt the doctors. They are looking to get rid of the insurance companies, which I think we can all agree serve no purpose but to be a "middle man" and take a chunk of money from the process that could be better spent on actual health care.

Just so you know, Doctors in most European countries do quite well. Most of those countries have a "no fault" system where the government pays any compensation due to someone injured, and doctors are not required to have any kind of malpractice insurance. Many of those governments also pay the cost of going to medical school. So yes, doctors earn less money, but their expenses are also much lower, and doctors still do earn much much more than the average person.

Sponsored Links

CGSTL · #32 11-03-2007, 02:51 PM

Your claim regarding Hillarycare, Edwardscare, and Obamacare is encouraging. I hear them say that a certain level of citizen is entitled to free healthcare and it just sounds socialistic. Like you, they are socialists and I don't trust them with any program or service as far as I can throw them.

But why not take all the profit out of the insurance industry and realize the benefits of pooling, WITHOUT any government agency being involved? It is perfectly clear that when a government runs a massive program, it's is run poorly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

You may wish to know that NONE of the Democratic presidential candidates are suggesting that Doctors practices become socialized. I say this because of the comment by your Avatar.

What some of the candidates (and Michael Moore) are proposing is a system of regulation and a single payer with fixed rates. What those rates are is up for discussion, but I'm sure they are not looking to bankrupt the doctors. They are looking to get rid of the insurance companies, which I think we can all agree serve no purpose but to be a "middle man" and take a chunk of money from the process that could be better spent on actual health care.

Just so you know, Doctors in most European countries do quite well. Most of those countries have a "no fault" system where the government pays any compensation due to someone injured, and doctors are not required to have any kind of malpractice insurance. Many of those governments also pay the cost of going to medical school. So yes, doctors earn less money, but their expenses are also much lower, and doctors still do earn much much more than the average person.

Eric5273 · #33 11-03-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGSTL

But why not take all the profit out of the insurance industry and realize the benefits of pooling, WITHOUT any government agency being involved? It is perfectly clear that when a government runs a massive program, it's is run poorly.

I would have no objection to that. Personally I am in the music industry, and we have BMI, ASCAP and the Harry Fox Agency, all of which are government regulated non-profit PRIVATE companies that collect royalties for the publishers -- and all are run VERY efficiently. I think the least efficient is the Harry Fox Agency which last year deducted operating expenses of around 7% from royalty payments. BMI's operating expenses were around 4%.

If the health care industry was to do something like that, it would be great. But they are obviously not going to do it on their own. The insurance companies are not going to voluntarily close down or agree to become non-profit. The government will have to legislate any such changes.

And just so you know, that suggestion is more socialistic than what either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards is suggesting. Both of them are suggesting that the government simply pay the private insurance companies to insure those who cannot afford insurance. To me, that is not socialism, but is fascism -- or "corporate welfare" if you would rather call it that. It is more along the lines of that last Medicaid bill from a couple of years ago -- a free handout to private industry. And no surprise either -- as Michael Moore clearly pointed out in his movie "Sicko", Hillary Clinton receives more money from the Health Care industry than any other member of congress.

You seem to want to group all of them together. But what Hillary Clinton is proposing is the total opposite of what Michael Moore proposed in his movie "Sicko". They are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.

CGSTL · #34 11-03-2007, 05:26 PM

Who is Michael Moore?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I would have no objection to that. Personally I am in the music industry, and we have BMI, ASCAP and the Harry Fox Agency, all of which are government regulated non-profit PRIVATE companies that collect royalties for the publishers -- and all are run VERY efficiently. I think the least efficient is the Harry Fox Agency which last year deducted operating expenses of around 7% from royalty payments. BMI's operating expenses were around 4%.

If the health care industry was to do something like that, it would be great. But they are obviously not going to do it on their own. The insurance companies are not going to voluntarily close down or agree to become non-profit. The government will have to legislate any such changes.

And just so you know, that suggestion is more socialistic than what either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards is suggesting. Both of them are suggesting that the government simply pay the private insurance companies to insure those who cannot afford insurance. To me, that is not socialism, but is fascism -- or "corporate welfare" if you would rather call it that. It is more along the lines of that last Medicaid bill from a couple of years ago -- a free handout to private industry. And no surprise either -- as Michael Moore clearly pointed out in his movie "Sicko", Hillary Clinton receives more money from the Health Care industry than any other member of congress.

You seem to want to group all of them together. But what Hillary Clinton is proposing is the total opposite of what Michael Moore proposed in his movie "Sicko". They are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue.

Sponsored Links