universal healthcare

[PLAYER57832]

One issue only barely addressed is malpractice. Many, MANY decisions in medicine come down to pure judgement calls by doctors. As a patient, particularly a parent, we want to find someone or something to blame when things go wrong, but the real truth is that a doctor can make what seems to be a perfectly reasonable, even fully warranted decision and still have it come out wrong. That's even aside from the problems of doctors that are fatigued or who lack training they need because of understaffing, lack of funding, etc.

By relying so heavily on this idea that a Lawsuit is the best way to solve malpractice, or is the only way someone can hope to get their care paid, it actually forces doctors to order many more unnecessary tests, to spend far more time simply documenting procedures to cover themselves in the event of a question or even lawsuit later. Few of the real problems are best fixed by a lawsuit. Instead, it sets up a system whereby all the good doctors wind up paying higher premiums for the few incompetent (or even just unlucky ones). In a recent interview, I heard a doctor say that he has to have an RN present for even the simplest surgery just recording information in case they are later sued. Granted, maybe that shoud happen anyway, for a lot of reasons. (tracking is one way to find improvements), but so much of what a doctor does now has to do with "bookkeeping" that the time left for patients is less and less.

Add in that each hospital has to have the forms and so forth for up to maybe 100 different types of policies, several insurance companies and a single payor system would go a long way to correcting both of those issues.

Because medical care is already paid, there is no need for the patient to sue just to get what they need. They can still sue or seek other recourse (i.e. criminal prosecution, etc.) when a doctor is really and truly evil or outrageously incompetent. Furthermore, since the paperwork is less and since the information is kept in one basic system, tracking the real information (personnal information can be removed .. this is data on types of procedures versus outcomes, etc.) will better
and allow for easier solutions to real problems.

[PopeBenXVI]

One issue only barely addressed is malpractice. Many, MANY decisions in medicine come down to pure judgement calls by doctors. As a patient, particularly a parent, we want to find someone or something to blame when things go wrong, but the real truth is that a doctor can make what seems to be a perfectly reasonable, even fully warranted decision and still have it come out wrong. That's even aside from the problems of doctors that are fatigued or who lack training they need because of understaffing, lack of funding, etc.

By relying so heavily on this idea that a Lawsuit is the best way to solve malpractice, or is the only way someone can hope to get their care paid, it actually forces doctors to order many more unnecessary tests, to spend far more time simply documenting procedures to cover themselves in the event of a question or even lawsuit later. Few of the real problems are best fixed by a lawsuit. Instead, it sets up a system whereby all the good doctors wind up paying higher premiums for the few incompetent (or even just unlucky ones). In a recent interview, I heard a doctor say that he has to have an RN present for even the simplest surgery just recording information in case they are later sued. Granted, maybe that shoud happen anyway, for a lot of reasons. (tracking is one way to find improvements), but so much of what a doctor does now has to do with "bookkeeping" that the time left for patients is less and less.

Add in that each hospital has to have the forms and so forth for up to maybe 100 different types of policies, several insurance companies and a single payor system would go a long way to correcting both of those issues.

Because medical care is already paid, there is no need for the patient to sue just to get what they need. They can still sue or seek other recourse (i.e. criminal prosecution, etc.) when a doctor is really and truly evil or outrageously incompetent. Furthermore, since the paperwork is less and since the information is kept in one basic system, tracking the real information (personnal information can be removed .. this is data on types of procedures versus outcomes, etc.) will better
and allow for easier solutions to real problems.

I wonder if the government were running everything and a mistake was made could we sue them? Maybe part of the government cutting costs would be for everyone to just deal with the screw up made so all that money was not waisted on suing.

[PopeBenXVI]

The problem is they were run by the government

The problem is that you don't actually have any evidence for anything that you ever say. You just rely on emptily shrieking "Teh guvhmint is tayke away our FREEdom!!!1" and hoping that everybody takes your word for it.

Do you need the government to help you wipe yourself and hold your hand across the street too?

[Dancing Mustard]

The problem is they were run by the government

The problem is that you don't actually have any evidence for anything that you ever say. You just rely on emptily shrieking "Teh guvhmint is tayke away our FREEdom!!!1" and hoping that everybody takes your word for it.

Do you need the government to help you wipe yourself and hold your hand across the street too?

There, see. You're doing it again. Thanks for proving my point, Bubbles.

No facts, no arguments, nothing... just empty shrieking, rabid claims that you're being turned into a slave because somebody wants to tax you a couple of extra cents, and a few boring insults whenever somebody calls you out on it.

Welcome to 'Intellectual Lightweight-ville', Population: You.

[PLAYER57832]

One issue only barely addressed is malpractice. Many, MANY decisions in medicine come down to pure judgement calls by doctors. As a patient, particularly a parent, we want to find someone or something to blame when things go wrong, but the real truth is that a doctor can make what seems to be a perfectly reasonable, even fully warranted decision and still have it come out wrong. That's even aside from the problems of doctors that are fatigued or who lack training they need because of understaffing, lack of funding, etc.

By relying so heavily on this idea that a Lawsuit is the best way to solve malpractice, or is the only way someone can hope to get their care paid, it actually forces doctors to order many more unnecessary tests, to spend far more time simply documenting procedures to cover themselves in the event of a question or even lawsuit later. Few of the real problems are best fixed by a lawsuit. Instead, it sets up a system whereby all the good doctors wind up paying higher premiums for the few incompetent (or even just unlucky ones). In a recent interview, I heard a doctor say that he has to have an RN present for even the simplest surgery just recording information in case they are later sued. Granted, maybe that shoud happen anyway, for a lot of reasons. (tracking is one way to find improvements), but so much of what a doctor does now has to do with "bookkeeping" that the time left for patients is less and less.



Add in that each hospital has to have the forms and so forth for up to maybe 100 different types of policies, several insurance companies and a single payor system would go a long way to correcting both of those issues.

Because medical care is already paid, there is no need for the patient to sue just to get what they need. They can still sue or seek other recourse (i.e. criminal prosecution, etc.) when a doctor is really and truly evil or outrageously incompetent. Furthermore, since the paperwork is less and since the information is kept in one basic system, tracking the real information (personnal information can be removed .. this is data on types of procedures versus outcomes, etc.) will better
and allow for easier solutions to real problems.

I wonder if the government were running everything and a mistake was made could we sue them? Maybe part of the government cutting costs would be for everyone to just deal with the screw up made so all that money was not waisted on suing.

Right now, many insurance companies have "binding arbitration" agreements, which if you did not know are settled in favor of the companies over 80% of the time.

Further, as I pointed out above, lawsuits don't really solve anything. Yes, I know folks like to claim they "keep people in check", but they really just drive up insurance costs and make doctors spend more time worrying about being sued than practicing medicine.

[PopeBenXVI]

One issue only barely addressed is malpractice. Many, MANY decisions in medicine come down to pure judgement calls by doctors. As a patient, particularly a parent, we want to find someone or something to blame when things go wrong, but the real truth is that a doctor can make what seems to be a perfectly reasonable, even fully warranted decision and still have it come out wrong. That's even aside from the problems of doctors that are fatigued or who lack training they need because of understaffing, lack of funding, etc.

By relying so heavily on this idea that a Lawsuit is the best way to solve malpractice, or is the only way someone can hope to get their care paid, it actually forces doctors to order many more unnecessary tests, to spend far more time simply documenting procedures to cover themselves in the event of a question or even lawsuit later. Few of the real problems are best fixed by a lawsuit. Instead, it sets up a system whereby all the good doctors wind up paying higher premiums for the few incompetent (or even just unlucky ones). In a recent interview, I heard a doctor say that he has to have an RN present for even the simplest surgery just recording information in case they are later sued. Granted, maybe that shoud happen anyway, for a lot of reasons. (tracking is one way to find improvements), but so much of what a doctor does now has to do with "bookkeeping" that the time left for patients is less and less.



Add in that each hospital has to have the forms and so forth for up to maybe 100 different types of policies, several insurance companies and a single payor system would go a long way to correcting both of those issues.

Because medical care is already paid, there is no need for the patient to sue just to get what they need. They can still sue or seek other recourse (i.e. criminal prosecution, etc.) when a doctor is really and truly evil or outrageously incompetent. Furthermore, since the paperwork is less and since the information is kept in one basic system, tracking the real information (personnal information can be removed .. this is data on types of procedures versus outcomes, etc.) will better
and allow for easier solutions to real problems.

I wonder if the government were running everything and a mistake was made could we sue them? Maybe part of the government cutting costs would be for everyone to just deal with the screw up made so all that money was not waisted on suing.

Right now, many insurance companies have "binding arbitration" agreements, which if you did not know are settled in favor of the companies over 80% of the time.

Further, as I pointed out above, lawsuits don't really solve anything. Yes, I know folks like to claim they "keep people in check", but they really just drive up insurance costs and make doctors spend more time worrying about being sued than practicing medicine.

I know what you are saying and I appreciate the info. It does not answer my question though. Not that anyone would know for sure but we can speculate.

[PopeBenXVI]

The problem is they were run by the government

The problem is that you don't actually have any evidence for anything that you ever say. You just rely on emptily shrieking "Teh guvhmint is tayke away our FREEdom!!!1" and hoping that everybody takes your word for it.

Do you need the government to help you wipe yourself and hold your hand across the street too?

There, see. You're doing it again. Thanks for proving my point, Bubbles.

No facts, no arguments, nothing... just empty shrieking, rabid claims that you're being turned into a slave because somebody wants to tax you a couple of extra cents, and a few boring insults whenever somebody calls you out on it.

Welcome to 'Intellectual Lightweight-ville', Population: You.

I have not seen many "facts" from you on this thread. All you have been doing in insulting people who strive for less government intervention. Yet you show no proof the government has run any similar programs well. Rant all you want about my position but you clearly live up to your accusations far more than I.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is they were run by the government

The problem is that you don't actually have any evidence for anything that you ever say. You just rely on emptily shrieking "Teh guvhmint is tayke away our FREEdom!!!1" and hoping that everybody takes your word for it.

Do you need the government to help you wipe yourself and hold your hand across the street too?

There, see. You're doing it again. Thanks for proving my point, Bubbles.

No facts, no arguments, nothing... just empty shrieking, rabid claims that you're being turned into a slave because somebody wants to tax you a couple of extra cents, and a few boring insults whenever somebody calls you out on it.

Welcome to 'Intellectual Lightweight-ville', Population: You.

I have not seen many "facts" from you on this thread. All you have been doing in insulting people who strive for less government intervention. Yet you show no proof the government has run any similar programs well. Rant all you want about my position but you clearly live up to your accusations far more than I.

You can look at the many countries that have programs. The real truth is that people are happier there than here. That does not mean 100% and no problems, no, but it means far more people are satisfied than here.

Actually, despite its issues, medicare is a reasonably run program, but since it is not comprehensive and covers only a segment, a particularly unhealthy segment, costs are more of an issue than they would be in a universal system.

[PopeBenXVI]

You can look at the many countries that have programs. The real truth is that people are happier there than here. That does not mean 100% and no problems, no, but it means far more people are satisfied than here.

Actually, despite its issues, medicare is a reasonably run program, but since it is not comprehensive and covers only a segment, a particularly unhealthy segment, costs are more of an issue than they would be in a universal system.

I disagree but that should be of no surprise.

[Dancing Mustard]

Ahhh, and there's that lack of intellectual substance manifesting itself again. Congratulations for running straight onto the knife.

I have not seen many "facts" from you on this thread. All you have been doing in insulting people who strive for less government intervention.

Wrong.

(1) When I was actually participating in this thread for the purposes of debate, I presented a great deal of facts. Go back and check. Any assertion that I didn't can only be the product of (a) flagrantly partisan selective recollection, or (b) the fact that you have the memory of a goldfish.

(2) I'm not insulting people who 'strive for less government intervention', I'm insulting imbeciles who base their arguments on shrieking fallacies and personal attacks.... i.e. You.

Congratulation on missing both of those vital points and once again exposing yourself as utterly feeble-minded. It almost feels like you're going out of your way to prove me right.

[jbrettlip]

One thing that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the FLorida Hurricane insurance. After all the hurricanes a few years ago, private insurers pulled out of FL (Allstate, state farm etc) and the ones that remained upped their rates to reflect the risk. SO now a lot FL residents were uninsured. The state began a government insurance program for the homeowners, setting policy prices ridiculously low. That forced the other companies that remained (and knew how to predict risk etc) to be uncompetitive and leave the market. Now the FL hurricane fund is woefully underfunded, and the next hurricane may possibly bankrupt the state. Unless the federal government steps in to save them. Therefore people in ND, are subsidizing the fact that some idiot built where hurricanes strike regularly.

Now I know there are some jumps in logic here, but I think there are some parallels. The lower priced govt program did eliminate private insurance in FL. That was never its goal. It is mismanaged, because to be popular, the rates weren't set correctly and the people running it don't have the experience that insurance companies do.

And no, I don't have links, footnotes etc, but a simple search should get you some info. (and I am not talking Fox news)

[PLAYER57832]

One thing that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the FLorida Hurricane insurance. After all the hurricanes a few years ago, private insurers pulled out of FL (Allstate, state farm etc) and the ones that remained upped their rates to reflect the risk. SO now a lot FL residents were uninsured. The state began a government insurance program for the homeowners, setting policy prices ridiculously low. That forced the other companies that remained (and knew how to predict risk etc) to be uncompetitive and leave the market. Now the FL hurricane fund is woefully underfunded, and the next hurricane may possibly bankrupt the state. Unless the federal government steps in to save them. Therefore people in ND, are subsidizing the fact that some idiot built where hurricanes strike regularly.

Now I know there are some jumps in logic here, but I think there are some parallels. The lower priced govt program did eliminate private insurance in FL. That was never its goal. It is mismanaged, because to be popular, the rates weren't set correctly and the people running it don't have the experience that insurance companies do.

And no, I don't have links, footnotes etc, but a simple search should get you some info. (and I am not talking Fox news)

The problem here is actually the opposite of healthcare. The problem is that a few people who choose to live in an area with hurricanes (I know its complicated, but it is a choice). They want the benefits, but then want other people, essentially to carry the risk. Too many people build in areas that really should not have houses. If insurance is too high, then that indicates an area that is just too expensive to repair and maintain. However, since people are not forced to bear the true costs, we are, again, left to carry the burden.

I know I sound hard-hearted, but those houses represent an ecological disaster as well as a tax-payor drain. They plain should not have been built and would not have been built if the people had to pay the true costs.

[jbrettlip]

One thing that hasn't been brought up in this thread is the FLorida Hurricane insurance. After all the hurricanes a few years ago, private insurers pulled out of FL (Allstate, state farm etc) and the ones that remained upped their rates to reflect the risk. SO now a lot FL residents were uninsured. The state began a government insurance program for the homeowners, setting policy prices ridiculously low. That forced the other companies that remained (and knew how to predict risk etc) to be uncompetitive and leave the market. Now the FL hurricane fund is woefully underfunded, and the next hurricane may possibly bankrupt the state. Unless the federal government steps in to save them. Therefore people in ND, are subsidizing the fact that some idiot built where hurricanes strike regularly.

Now I know there are some jumps in logic here, but I think there are some parallels. The lower priced govt program did eliminate private insurance in FL. That was never its goal. It is mismanaged, because to be popular, the rates weren't set correctly and the people running it don't have the experience that insurance companies do.

And no, I don't have links, footnotes etc, but a simple search should get you some info. (and I am not talking Fox news)

The problem here is actually the opposite of healthcare. The problem is that a few people who choose to live in an area with hurricanes (I know its complicated, but it is a choice). They want the benefits, but then want other people, essentially to carry the risk. Too many people build in areas that really should not have houses. If insurance is too high, then that indicates an area that is just too expensive to repair and maintain. However, since people are not forced to bear the true costs, we are, again, left to carry the burden.

I know I sound hard-hearted, but those houses represent an ecological disaster as well as a tax-payor drain. They plain should not have been built and would not have been built if the people had to pay the true costs.

Agree with you totally. The parallels I was trying to draw were the ones of a govt sponsored plan being "better managed" and coexisting with private insurance. That is what we are told can and will happen, but here is a smaller program that shows neither of those things occurred.

[PLAYER57832]

Agree with you totally. The parallels I was trying to draw were the ones of a govt sponsored plan being "better managed" and coexisting with private insurance. That is what we are told can and will happen, but here is a smaller program that shows neither of those things occurred.

Except the government plan IS actually well-managed, I (and it seems you) just disagree with the goals. The goal is to provide cheap coverage so people can still live in Florida.

Insurance in Florida is not and cannot be cost-effective when market forces are really allowed to operate. The difference between Florida and health care is that Florida impacts only a few people who have a choice (ultimately) in where they live. Healthcare affects everyone.

In Florida, I would place far greater a burden on builders and landlords/homeowners. I would, for example REQUIRE them to have insurance and/or put in "no rebuild" provisions. But, more than that, I would have part of the "insurance" or a flat tax go to set aside funds for restoration of some of those areas to a more natural state.

Eventually, technologies may exist that will make it cost effective to build in those areas, but right now is not the time. This is why I keep referring to back-handed subsidies of businesses and people. In a sense, every business operating in Florida is subsidized by us in those ways. (environmental damage, hurricanes, etc.)

[jbrettlip]

no a well run insurance program would be able to pay losses. THere is already a huge shortfall in the fund. So it is poorly run.

[Night Strike]

From the NYT Bestsellers thread.

The new #1 book, Catastophe by Dick Morris reached the spot just two weeks after release. The book talks about how the Obama administration is using the recession to quickly push through a socialist agenda. The book was even rushed into print to put out facts regarding the dangers of socialized medicine.

So the conservative movement is alive and kicking because people buy retarded books?

Do you have any facts saying that they're retarded? Or is it just that you don't believe them? Unless you've read the book, or at least excerpts and reviews, I don't think you can say it's retarded. In fact, I'd say the chances of it being retarded are far less the more copies it sells. The "retarded" books are the ones people don't buy.

If the books warn about the "dangers of socialized medicine" I can pretty safely say they're retarded without needing to actually read them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html

Sounds pretty dangerous to me. At least if you get cancer.

[jbrettlip]

Does G.B. have universal dental care? Because the Brits have some f'ed up teeth.

[Snorri1234]

It is good that you have been paying attention to my posts in this thread.

[jbrettlip]

It is good that you have been paying attention to my posts in this thread.

21 pages was too much for me to read, I just wanted to make a lame joke!

[PLAYER57832]

Sounds pretty dangerous to me. At least if you get cancer.

Except, here is the thing. Conservatives like to parade this "socialist medicine stinks", "people living in countries with socialized medicine hate it", etc.

However, when NPR really looked at the issue last year, including several all-encompassing scientific surveys (not done by NPR, just reported by them), they found that people were more satisfied and got better care overall for less money than here.

Furthermore, if you really look at where the many of the biggest medical advances have come, particularly in pharmaceuticals, it is not from private companies, but the government NIH. (Taxol and leading anti-malaria drugs are 2 examples)

[Snorri1234]

It is good that you have been paying attention to my posts in this thread.

21 pages was too much for me to read, I just wanted to make a lame joke!

Oh I was talking to Nightstrike. I thoroughly enjoy stereotypes of the British.

[Snorri1234]

Sounds pretty dangerous to me. At least if you get cancer.

Except, here is the thing. Conservatives like to parade this "socialist medicine stinks", "people living in countries with socialized medicine hate it", etc.

However, when NPR really looked at the issue last year, including several all-encompassing scientific surveys (not done by NPR, just reported by them), they found that people were more satisfied and got better care overall for less money than here.

Furthermore, if you really look at where the many of the biggest medical advances have come, particularly in pharmaceuticals, it is not from private companies, but the government NIH. (Taxol and leading anti-malaria drugs are 2 examples)

Word.

Anyway, regardless of the fact that lumping cancer-survival rates all together is ridiculous from a medical viewpoint, the great thing about Europe is that there are fewer people dying from more easily treatable diseases. In fact, I'd wager that a relatively important part of the lower survival-rate of Europeans is the problem that sooner or later nearly everyone gets cancer. It's the number one cause of death for people over 30 or 40 because of the simple fact that we have managed to make sure nearly every other disease is manageable.

[thegreekdog]

So, just to make sure I'm clear, more people die of cancer in England because they have to die of something, so why not cancer?

[Snorri1234]

So, just to make sure I'm clear, more people die of cancer in England because they have to die of something, so why not cancer?

No. While there is ofcourse a problem with the NHS in this and I do not doubt it could be better managed, it's absurd to point to this as the failings of the "socialist" system and wasn't what I was saying anyway.

More people die of cancer in Europe because we have successfully managed to do something about other causes of death. If say, you were to manage treat every single disease except cancer with a 100% succesrate you would increase the number of people who get cancer a great deal.

[thegreekdog]

So, just to make sure I'm clear, more people die of cancer in England because they have to die of something, so why not cancer?

No. While there is ofcourse a problem with the NHS in this and I do not doubt it could be better managed, it's absurd to point to this as the failings of the "socialist" system and wasn't what I was saying anyway.

More people die of cancer in Europe because we have successfully managed to do something about other causes of death. If say, you were to manage treat every single disease except cancer with a 100% succesrate you would increase the number of people who get cancer a great deal.

Okay (frankly, I still think you're saying more people die of cancer because they have to die of something, so why not cancer), but whatever. I'll concede that point.

There are ways to not only treat cancer, but catch it early (through the use of preventative medicine), which increases the effect of treatment.

Further, are you saying that these diseases that have been cured in England are not cured in the United States?