How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[billvon 3,073]

>Sure, the doctor could lose his license (very unlikely though), and
>could even be prosecuted (even less unlikely), but you won't get anything
>out of it - except, maybe, moral satisfaction.

In a capitalist country you won't get anything out of it either - except, maybe, money. You won't get your spine back.

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

In a capitalist country you won't get anything out of it either - except, maybe, money. You won't get your spine back.

That's true, but at least getting money might be better than getting nothing at all.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Zipp0 1]

  Quote

>For society to be at its best, society needs to get rid of the drags, doesn't it?

I assume you're kidding there.

Maybe he was talking about lawyers.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

  Quote

I have HIV, should I be killed off because some fucknut lawyer thinks I am a "drag on society".

No. I'm saying that you'd be no better off in a socialist system. At least, in 20 years when they start making cuts because they realize they're pumping billions into treatment of people who aren't giving them any benefit. Governments do that - invest. And they expect returns on the investment. WHen it starts to be a drain, they look for more money for it or they slash it.

Guess where HIV sufferers will end up? Or the old? Or the otherwise chrinocally ill?

  Quote

I can say the samething about someone who slipped on ice and broke their neck. Hell, they knew the risk of walking on ice. Fuck them.

Yes, it could. Such things would likely result in the government paying for the medical care, then seekign indemnity against the people who caused their outlay of expenses by being stupid.

  Quote

I can say the same about someone who develops colon cancer. Fuck them. They knew there was the possiblity that after a certian age that they could develop this form of cancer.

Now you are thinking like a bureacrat!

  Quote

Paralyzed in a car accident driving to work? Car accident wasn't your fault? You know damn well, that everytime you drive a car that an accident can occur. Fuck you, it's your own damn fault. You could had walked thus avoiding the possibilty of being in a car accident.

Driving to work? Okay, we'll help this person out. He pays taxes. The chronically ill person? Well, now there's a choice to be made, eh? THis is the BUREACRAT thinking - not mine.

  Quote

I've never even heard of HIV until Feb. 1995.

You don't recall Magic Johnson's press conference? I don't even like basketball, and EVERYONE was talking about that.

  Quote

Should that preclude me from any healthcare?

That's up to the bureacrats. If there is to be inexpensive healthcare, then the answer is "yes." If there is to be unfettered access to highest quality healthcare for all, for whatever reason, then healthcare will be expensive. This is my point. You can't have a high-quality Ferrari for $5k for everyone.

  Quote

They way I read lawrockets little diatribe is that anyone who is ill due to something they did should be cast to the garbage heap, promptly. So much for care and compassion.

It's not my diatribe. It's my prediction for how things will work out if the government is in charge. The government knows it can't do everything for everyone. It chooses priorities. and it ALWAYS chooses the priorities that are in their best interests.

See, the elderly tend to vote in massive numbers. There are lots of them, and most of them vote. Hence, SS and Medicare can be expected to remain in some form in perpetuity.

HIV sufferers? They are a small percentage of the population. Not enough to swing an election. Let them go.

Smokers? Well, there are a large number of them. A politician wants to deny coverage for smokers? That's a tougher issue that may cost an election. We;ll put that aside for another few years until the ranks of smokers dwindle due to progressive tax increases.

Drunk drivers get injured? We'll pay for treatments. Conviction of drunk driving? Then the government will sue the drunk driver to recover the costs of treating the driver and the victims.

It's the way it will go. Governments are in the business of MAKING MONEY - not losing it. When the money put out otwards a class of persons exceeds the tax revenues - and the size of the voter bloc - they will be kept out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[nathaniel 0]

  Quote

Yes, treating everyone who is abusing themselves. that article still emphasizes curative care. prevention isn't "ok, now let's loose weight." Prevention is "eat healthfully and exercise, don't get fat to begin with."

Would you just write off the 30% or so of people that are already obese? They've still got a few dozen years to gum up our system.

Also it still sounds like you're suffering from the immortality trap:

  Quote

The actual savings are also not as large as might at first seem. Even if you don’t develop diabetes, your lifetime medical costs won’t drop to zero. You might live longer and better and yet still ultimately run up almost as big a lifetime medical bill, because you’ll eventually have other problems. That would be an undeniably better outcome, but it wouldn’t produce a financial windfall for society.

Prevention, when it works, may prevent an instance of illness but only puts off your death--preventive treatment does not prevent death or make it cheaper. I mean it's not like we're including $0.25 rides in the suicide booth with the weight management program.

If you don't die of diabetes, you'll get Alzheimer's or cancer or high blood pressure etc.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[sv3n 0]

  Quote

  Quote

If everybody is covered for everything

don't forget - it's FREE too

Cute......never said it was free, but there's ways to work that stuff out.............if other people were able to figure out a system where everybody has healthcare, America.....being at the top of the food chain, so to speak.......should have no problem accomplishing it.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[1969912 0]

  Quote

  Quote

First Fission Weapon? US

ANOTHER government program.

Thanks for that important clarification. Your brilliant observation has done unimaginable damage to my argument.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

  Quote

If everybody is covered for everything, as I've been suggesting, then there's no people deciding who's special enough to get treatment.

So in your ideal system, rationing of HC services is disallowed. Can you find a SHC system that does not perform ratiioning? As you already know, the best HC system in the world, the French system, relies on rationing. I submit that you will not be able to find a SHC system with no rationing. Certainly, these systems don't want to ration HC, but are required to do so in order prevent total failure of their HC system due to runaway costs

EVERY SHC system that I have looked at has, in the recent past, been on the verge of complete failure, requiring emergency funding measures and/or reform, including rationing

Given the above, what might your proposed US HC system do at the front end to ensure that rationing can never take place?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,106]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

First Fission Weapon? US

ANOTHER government program.

Thanks for that important clarification. Your brilliant observation has done unimaginable damage to my argument.

It depends upon how you define "dunno" "argument".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sv3n 0]

  Quote

  Quote

If everybody is covered for everything, as I've been suggesting, then there's no people deciding who's special enough to get treatment.

So in your ideal system, rationing of HC services is disallowed. Can you find a SHC system that does not perform ratiioning? As you already know, the best HC system in the world, the French system, relies on rationing. I submit that you will not be able to find a SHC system with no rationing. Certainly, these systems don't want to ration HC, but are required to do so in order prevent total failure of their HC system due to runaway costs

EVERY SHC system that I have looked at has, in the recent past, been on the verge of complete failure, requiring emergency funding measures and/or reform, including rationing

Given the above, what might your proposed US HC system do at the front end to ensure that rationing can never take place?

It would require a complete budget overhaul, most importantly a priority list in our budget.........I'm not sure who was in charge of that list before, but i don't believe that war is our number 1 priority in this country. It should be our citizens and their health. That would give us a lot of extra revenue to play with.......imagine a world where we don't spend up to 51% of our budget on military spending and reduce it to 20% (if I recall correctly china was in second place with 12%, so we'd still be numbero uno). That would give us an extra 31% of our budget.

Step 1: stop letting government officials who know nothing about accounting hand out money. Let accountants do it..........there wouldn't be any excess money spent then. "do you have a receipt for that?" Get some of the top accountants out there to deal with the money and have them run like a corporation.

Step 2: put out a business plan for our country what our goals are and so on and so forth, of course the goals should be decided by its citizens. that should help keep us on task rather than arguing about who got a bj or who got stains on their dress. Those things are all distractions.

Step 3: hold officials responsible for their actions....if officials lie to get what they want, then they go to prison. no bs pardons, just "go have fun with bubba".

...and you're in violation of your face!

[lawrocket 3]

  Quote

It would require a complete budget overhaul, most importantly a priority list in our budget.

This sounds as if you are proposing that socialized health care is going to be expensive and therefore we must eliminate speinding in other areas to pay for it. Thus, health care is not going to be inexpensive. We'll just redirect massive amounts of money to pay for it.

Thus, we are looking at health care that is not rationed, high quality, and super expensive. Which is fine, if that's what you want. But since the purpose of this thread was how to keep costs under control, well, it seems that this is the antithesis. And proof that you cannot have cheap, high quality unrationed healthcare. You can have cheap, high quality rationed healthcare. Of your can have cheap and unrationed healthcare of low quality. Or you can have expensive health care that is unrationed and high quality.

You are therefore picking winners and losers. Exactly what I said happens. The GOVERNMENT decides who wins and loses. A slippery slope.

Interestingly, it's the same thing as my proposal, only instead of the government moving spending from wars and other things to health care I am proposing that individualse move their spending from beer, vehicles and Playstations to healthcare.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

"If you pay people to be poor, then you should expect more poor people." P. J. O'Rourke

.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

If everybody is covered for everything

don't forget - it's FREE too

Cute......never said it was free, but there's ways to work that stuff out.............if other people were able to figure out a system where everybody has healthcare, America.....being at the top of the food chain, so to speak.......should have no problem accomplishing it.

That's the point we keep trying to show you - people AREN'T "being covered for everything" and governments ARE denying care to people - and you ignore it in favor of your fond fantasy.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

BATTERED LIBERAL SYNDROME

Those of you liberals out there, I know you're out there, and I know you're battered. You are constantly upset. You're angry. The people you've been voting for, when they win, the problems don't go away. You don't have health insurance; you don't have this; you don't have that; destroying the planet, da-da-da. It's just miserable out there. Yet you keep voting for the same people and you end up being miserable. The cycle repeats. It's like Battered Wife Syndrome. This is Battered Liberal Syndrome. You get sweet talked, and then you get clobbered again. Then they sweet talk you again, and they come on to you, and they assure you it's going to be okay, and then you get clobbered again. How much verbal abuse are you liberals going to continue to take? Not from me, but from your own elected officials? How much psychological abuse do you think you've suffered? And why do you continue to take it? When will you finally say, "Enough. I'm through being a battered liberal?" How long will you accept the unacceptable? How long will you tolerate the intolerable?

Well, I know it's not that easy. Change is always hard, because change is new. I know it's not that easy. A lot of people develop a personality trait where they just like being battered, if for no other reason than they get some attention. But Battered Liberal Syndrome is a serious problem, and it has been for three-quarters of a century. It's a deep, dark secret, Battered Liberal Syndrome, where shame trumps the necessary cry for help. Battered Liberal Syndrome, accepting the promises on Election Day, and then neglect until the next election cycle, where the promises come again, and the promises are unmet. Promises on Election Day, broken promises, sadness and neglect until the next election. But there's hope, ladies and gentlemen. I intend to try to help those of you who are battered liberals. Battered Liberal Syndrome can be cured. You can break the cycle. And don't worry, the batterers are not listening. What do we know about Battered Liberal Syndrome? First, we know that it's hereditary. It's passed on from generation to generation. If your parents were battered liberals, it's good enough for you. And if your parents were battered liberals, it's what you grew up understanding; it's what you grew up being; and if it's good enough for your parents, why, it's good enough for you.


Continues: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882317/posts



.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[mnealtx 0]

Damn.... battered liberals? And all this time I've been eating them plain...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free!" P. J. O'Rourke

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

Damn.... battered liberals? And all this time I've been eating them plain...

Oh shit, this one took me a few seconds Dam that was good

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[drae 0]

  Quote

"If you pay people to be poor, then you should expect more poor people." Milton Friedman


.

I have never seen that, I love it!!
I have been arguing with the higher ups for years. My argument is you can't buy people out of poverty.
Unfortunately, unless you are in absolute poverty, there is very little available to assist you if you ever need a hand. The funds that could be used for such are instead used to support people.

[1969912 0]

It was attributed to the wrong guy. Should be P. J. O'Rourke.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

  Quote

  Quote

It would require a complete budget overhaul, most importantly a priority list in our budget.

This sounds as if you are proposing that socialized health care is going to be expensive and therefore we must eliminate speinding in other areas to pay for it. Thus, health care is not going to be inexpensive. We'll just redirect massive amounts of money to pay for it.

Thus, we are looking at health care that is not rationed, high quality, and super expensive. Which is fine, if that's what you want. But since the purpose of this thread was how to keep costs under control, well, it seems that this is the antithesis. And proof that you cannot have cheap, high quality unrationed healthcare. You can have cheap, high quality rationed healthcare. Of your can have cheap and unrationed healthcare of low quality. Or you can have expensive health care that is unrationed and high quality.

You are therefore picking winners and losers. Exactly what I said happens. The GOVERNMENT decides who wins and loses. A slippery slope.

Interestingly, it's the same thing as my proposal, only instead of the government moving spending from wars and other things to health care I am proposing that individualse move their spending from beer, vehicles and Playstations to healthcare.

Not at all.............with reduced costs we would actually be spending less on healthcare as a nation.........as I've previously shown, reducing our spending from $1.9 trillion down to about $600 million.

With everybody saying........."oh it's not possible, there's no way we could afford it"............I just showed you how we could free up a whole other chunk of change. Figure out what 51% of our budget is............that's what we're spending on the military. Now let's say we reduce that by 31%.........that's a hefty chunk of change to save. We've just essentially saved that.........and saved about $1.3 trillion by covering everybody through a socialized healthcare system. Now things might go up a little bit if you're talking about unrationed care, but we have extra $1.3 trillion to play with. (If you want to know the numbers in depth.....read this thread, we've had enough double posts)

We're not really picking winners or losers by cutting our costs and improving healthcare..........it's what's right for everybody.

I think it's time to get our books back into the positive and start taking care of our people.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[Lindsey 0]

  Quote

Damn.... battered liberals? And all this time I've been eating them plain...

HA! Which takes me back to one of my favorite t-shirts of all time....I know it's a repost, but it makes me laugh

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[georgerussia 0]

  Quote

No. I'm saying that you'd be no better off in a socialist system. At least, in 20 years when they start making cuts because they realize they're pumping billions into treatment of people who aren't giving them any benefit. Governments do that - invest. And they expect returns on the investment. WHen it starts to be a drain, they look for more money for it or they slash it.

This is correct. I know for sure that in Russia if you have AIDS, by law you are eligible to free AIDS treatment and free drugs in any clinic around Russia. Sounds cool, right? Here's the catch: AIDS treatement and drugs are expensive, and there is not enough money in the system to support everyone. So if you live in one of few rich districts like Moscow, you'll be most likely fine - at least 80% of patients receive the treatment. However if you live outside those districts - you are screwed, as less than 5% are receiving that care they are eligible to BY LAW.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *