The right wingers who are pro life should also be pro free healthcare. For whatever reasons they aren't.
The right wingers who are pro life should also be pro free healthcare. For whatever reasons they aren't.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
I believe everyone has the right to free, life saving procedures and preventative medicine, not a very good society if people are just "screw the poor, their own fault for getting ill!". I don't think all procedures and treatments should be free though, anything that is purely cosmetic for example should not be free.
- - - Updated - - -
They do care, once its mother claims benefits for the child, or the child commits a crime or what ever due to poor upbringing, then they say that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them etc
...in the US. Other countries seem to do fine. Fix your shit, it's not normal to charge people tens (or hundreds) of thousands $ for a simple visit to the ER. Last week I went to the ER with my 4-months baby because of an allergy. Do you know how much I paid? 6€. 6 fucking euros.
In Europe you can study to be a doctor for less than 7.000€ (around 1000 a year), even free in some countries. Again, fix your shit people. Stop with the silly excuses.
Last edited by Feahnor; 2017-05-19 at 03:14 PM.
I wonder when the first americans start to talk about free speech as a "privillege and no right" on social media.
Both, we can lower the cost by consolidating payers and negotiating the price for services. Everyone pays via taxes. Health care just becomes a budget item in our spending. We no longer have budget items for Medicaid, Medicare, VA. We have a single budget item labeled "Health Care" which handles reimbursements to hospitals for the care they provide.
No one has any excuses. It's great that you can study to be a doctor for less than 7,000 Euros. Trust me, we would be beyond ecstatic if we could do that here. Do you really think ANY human being in our education system wants to come out with half a million of debt?
You also misunderstood my 500K comment. That's the cost of treatment. Harvoni is like 30K a bottle. For many complex cases, you'll need to spend 500K+ to make someone "healthy" or "productive". I suggested that it wasn't worth the trade off if they can't provide at least that much benefit to society.
Also, just because you paid 6 euros doesn't mean it didn't cost the hospital more than 6 euros to do the treatment, house you and your baby, capital expenses of the equipment, administrative salaries of the people entering you into the system, and the cost of services of the doctors taking care of your child, let alone the cost of the drugs etc.
Additionally in the US, you have legal issues with physicians needing to cover themselves, and that's a lot of additional cost.
I really think you don't know what you're asking when you say "fix your shit".
- - - Updated - - -
Again, not so simple. This reimbursement has to cover all of the costs of the salaries of service and administration, capital expenditures including land and equipment, drug costs, legal, risk, IT infrastructure and more. If you consolidate payors and reduce the reimbursement, then this will not allow hospitals to necessarily provide better care as hospitals will HAVE to make cuts. They have to become more efficient as well. Hospital administration (if you've never worked in one) moves at the pace of mud.
A single payor system also standardizes salaries, makes people who are more skillful not rewarded, etc etc. Now you COULD reward them more, but then you have to allocate all of this within a fixed incoming revenue pool, and other physicians will be underpaid. There are a lot of problems. The original purpose of the AMA, other than monopolizing medical schools and generating a fuckton of revenue, was to increase the skillcap of the physicians in the US through a $ incentive driven model.
There are a lot of moving pieces that you're glossing over, and I haven't even touched on drug costs as set by a certain pharmaceutical industry.
Last edited by Dragoncurry; 2017-05-19 at 06:40 PM.
Nobody is glossing over anything. The Doctor has a salary, the Nurse has a salary, the equipment has a monthly cost, the building/property has a monthly cost, there is a cost to heat, cool, provide water, electricity etc. These all factor into the cost of treatment. The treatment should be priced accordingly.
If you consolidate payers, you wont need to process as much paper work or have staff that are required to learn different Insurance Systems and reimbursement codes. One system, one set of paper work, less administrative staff which lowers cost. Reimbursement rates can be negotiated, it would be a sticking point but its doable.
Hospitals are making a killing. $21,000 bill for heart burn??? This type of stuff should not happen.
Last edited by petej0; 2017-05-19 at 07:35 PM.
I don't think so, but that is the topic of debate.
- - - Updated - - -
If its a right, they are required too, I think Universal healthcare is good policy (albeit with some unpleasant implications) But i most strenuously do not think its an actual right (or should be).
In a world where healthcare is a positive right, the agency of medical personnel is by necessity curtailed.But I'm still not seeing how that paradigm requires slavery.
- - - Updated - - -
Free speech is a negative right, healthcare is a positive right - You are comparing apples and oranges.
This abstraction applies to any interaction with the state: if you're a subject of a jurisdiction your agency is curtailed in some manner. Which, I mean, it's an alright thing to think, but it's also a weird and uncommon paradigm (reminiscent of the sovereign citizen movement).
Is that what what you're hinting at?
More down to earth interpretations of what freedom is reject that abstraction. That's why I'm insisting that doctors are choosing those shackles.
That bill makes sense to me. What occurred here is that the patient has no idea what kind of services he's actually paying for. He went there for treatment but came out with 1,000 extra things for them "to diagnose the issue". That's bullshit don't you think?
He should have declined every single one of them from the prescribing physician, especially one who is clearly marking them up. He should have bought his own tylenol from Amazon, instead of from the hospital. I don't take a single thing from a visit to the ER except the room itself, which is already at a disproportionately high cost.
This is what I mean. People just don't know wtf is going on half the time. A single payor wouldn't reduce this guy's bill. He would still receive a ridiculously high bill because he would have 300 HCPC codes that describe his service instead of like...3.
- - - Updated - - -
Isn't a citizens' entitlement to a right dependent on what the leaders in the country decide it to be?
Last edited by Dragoncurry; 2017-05-19 at 08:33 PM.
Read the entire 11 pages!! Hospitals make a killing charging patients for items and procedures with a price that has no basis.
The Government would not pay these rates, because they dont pay these rates vie Medicare now. So I would have to respectfully disagree with you.
Last edited by petej0; 2017-05-19 at 08:53 PM.
Yes, pretty much, its an interesting paradox that we can only be free while having your agency curtailed (because the man marooned on an island "isn't free").
Yes, we choose.More down to earth interpretations of what freedom is reject that abstraction. That's why I'm insisting that doctors are choosing those shackles.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes and no, if its a right, it is generally beyond politicians to choose, a politician could make glasses a right, or not, but couldn't get rid of free speech, F.E.
This is a troll thread intentionally using some of the most ignorant arguments against universal healthcare possible. Stop responding ppl.
O and it's Jaylock...come on now.
Personally, I don't support the notion of "positive rights", because a "right" in this context refers to something that can't be denied. As such, it's inherently incompatible with actual (negative) rights due to the fact that it "entitles" you to resources that belong to someone else.
Ignoring the obvious stupidity of the OP, trolling or not, it's a right.
Common sense, compassion and coming from a country where I've seen it save multiple lives ingrained in me that healthcare is a right.
This concept of wuv confuses and infuriates us.
Of course.
This concept of wuv confuses and infuriates us.