congresswoman braggs Obama healthcare plan will destroy conventional healthcare syste
Results 1 to 6 of 6

congresswoman braggs Obama healthcare plan will destroy conventional healthcare syste

This is a discussion on congresswoman braggs Obama healthcare plan will destroy conventional healthcare syste within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Breitbart.tv Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry This is really bad. Why would ...

  1. #1
    festus's Avatar
    festus is offline God Bless Our Troops!!!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,079

    Exclamation congresswoman braggs Obama healthcare plan will destroy conventional healthcare syste

    Breitbart.tv Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry

    This is really bad. Why would you want to destroy the best healthcare system in the world?
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  2. #2
    wolfhunter Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Breitbart.tv Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry

    This is really bad. Why would you want to destroy the best healthcare system in the world?
    If we quit spending money on health care in the US, we can send more money to the richer people in Third World countries.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    89

    Default

    The folks that make the rules (and their families and friends) will not have to suffer any detriment as a result of the single payer system. It is only us "no names" and average individuals who will suffer. Wealthy folks from all over the world come here for their medical care because, somehow, the single payer, socialized medical system in their home countries is not good enough for them. You will hear politicians tout how wonderful the care is in countries with socialized medicine.
    I worked with health care providers from England, India, the Philippines, Canada and Mexico. Why did they want to work here? Why do physicians in Mexico come to the United States to train?

    I worked with a hand surgeon from Mexico. We became good friends. Before he left we went to Walmart to buy Black and Decker cordless power tools for him to use in surgery. Mexico has socialized medicine. Mexico will not buy the quality of equipment for the average MD. The MD pay from the Social Security Health System does not allow them to afford the best for the people they care for.

    But I guess since it is good for Mexico, it is good for us just like their gun laws. At least when we have socialized medicine we won't have to worry about foreigners coming here for medical care, that is unless they are rich and "jump the line" ahead of the rest of us.

    It is just one more step toward complete government control.

  4. #4
    CathyInBlue's Avatar
    CathyInBlue is offline Tool Maker
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ozark_II View Post
    I worked with a hand surgeon from Mexico. We became good friends. Before he left we went to Walmart to buy Black and Decker cordless power tools for him to use in surgery.
    What a coincidence... Black and Decker is made in Mexico.

    I'm going to step out of my staunch Arch-Conservative skin here for a moment and state that I don't care one whit if the current health insurance scheme is wrent assunder. I've always said that we in America have never had a health care crisis. We have a health care funding crisis. The problem is not one of having access to the best medicine or the most advanced technology, or the latest techniques. It's a question of being able to pay for them after the fact.

    Why is health care so expensive in America in the first place? Why is it that the only want most people can afford to pay for their health care is through a health insurance corporation?

    I submit that it's those health insurance corporations themselves that are to blame. When people are insulated from the costs of the goods and services they recieve, they become numb to those costs. They will demand more and more expensive goods and services without any concern for how much money is being paid.

    Then, there's the flip side, the doctors and hospitals charging exhorbitant rates, because they know they can. When someone comes in with "good" insurance, they'll get all manner of benefits, $800 for a 15 minute visit to an MRI machine that consumed $5 of electricity. $11 for a single aspirin.

    Where, in a free market, could a merchant charge such rates and expect to continue to be patronized by customers other than the medical industry? No where, save those places supported, not by their end-users, but by insurance companies.

    Are MRI machines expensive? Yes, they are. Are medical educations expensive? Yes, they are. Does it cost $11 for a hospital to supply to me an aspirin I could bring from home? No. It does not.

    If free market forces were returned to the medical industry, you would not see hospitals that are filthy because they can't afford to clean them anymore. You will see hospitals that use less expensive cleaners that get the surfaces just as sterile as before for a fraction of the cost. You will not see hospitals that don't have enough instruments to perform operations because they couldn't afford to buy the brand new ones for the month or the year. You will see hospitals that autoclave and reuse instruments more often and for longer than before.

    There actually is one area of medicine that is already subject to free market forces because insurance refuses to cover it, plastic surgery. Try comparing the costs of getting a boob job versus, say the installtion of an artificial elbow. Guarantee you, the boob job costs less. Similar costs in terms of materials, personnel, and facilities time, but the boob job people know they will be dealing with the individual and their wallet. The arthroscopic people know they'll be dealing a corporation.

    Instituting a government single-payer, socialist health care funding system will not undo that. It will make it worse. I was excited about the idea of a medical savings account. I could put money aside in a dedicated savings account in my own name, untaxed, and if I needed expensive specialist care, I could tap it without penalty. No. I can be forced to patronize insurance conglomerates and if I were to lose my job and had no income, I could continue to pay the corporation out of that medical (insurance) savings account. No thanks.

    Now, if suddenly there were no insurance companies and no single-payer system, would health care funding in America suffer? Sure. Suddenly doctors and hospitals would find that they had none of their former well-paying customers. Of course, the true customers of doctors and hospitals are the insurance companies. Suddenly, these institutions would be forced to come to grips with an economy, in a market, where they have largely priced themselves out of business.

    Very quickly, a new free market equilibrium will be found as prices come down to where people can again afford to pay for the services and medicines they need. Will it be perfect? What ever is? Will some new technologies not be developed because no one can afford to buy it? Perhaps. Will some new medications not be developed because their R&D costs will never be recouped? You'd have to ask the FDA about the costs of bringing new drugs to market, not me.

    People will have to shop around for their preventative care and take an active interest in their own health care funding again, no longer paying a bottomless pit of insurance for a promise of coverage that is all too often renegged upon. There will be the lavish luxury hospitals for the wealthy who can afford to pay to get meds and surgery on demand, now, now, now. There will be the mid-priced hospitals and general practicioners who cater to the middle classes. And there will be the charity hospitals who cater to the poor.

    Emergency, life saving care would still never be legally denied anyone, but in exchange for that legal, societal demand on their capital, a fixed, low level of common taxation (organized within the states/counties, never to
    add the inefficiencies of the federal government) would be provided to hospitals on an actual cost basis to offset the costs the hospitals and doctors could not recoup from the poorer of those they are forced to serve who could not otherwise afford such lifesaving medical treatment.

    So, the current hyper-expensive insurance scheme? Feh! A single-payer rationing scheme? Bah! A pox on both your houses.
    When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
    Don't retreat. Just reload.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    110

    Default

    One of the main things I don't like is the billing on a simple doctors vist. You see a doctor for 5 to 15 minutes. The charge is about $150 if you pay cash, if you have insurance the doctor gets paid $60 and he has to wait one to three months for his money. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Memphis, Tn
    Posts
    235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hiwall View Post
    One of the main things I don't like is the billing on a simple doctors vist. You see a doctor for 5 to 15 minutes. The charge is about $150 if you pay cash, if you have insurance the doctor gets paid $60 and he has to wait one to three months for his money. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
    Excellent point.
    The Avatar is my Great-Great Grandaddy, CPL Samuel Francis Bondurant, Co. D, 4th Alabama, Law's Brigade, Benning's Division, 1st Corp, Army of Northern Virginia, shot through right thigh 2 JUL 1863.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •