Why would anyone be AGAINST national healthcare???

Let's see...

Health care problems still existed under Clinton...so how can you ONLY blame republicans?

I don't have ANY confidence in a large system run by the government (IRS, Medicare, education system, etc.)
 
Go to central market, buy some groceries, and cook some damned food. Holy shit. Would you like me to show you how to eat it too? Get a fucking IQ dude.
 
You know that by the vast majority of measuring standards even Cuba has a better healthcare system than the good ole US of A?

nob, try thinking for yourself, then see what happens.
 
Imagine if you took profit out of the picture. You could spend less money personally, and still be covering the costs of other people.

Don't you guys realize what a conflict of interest it is when you have people that have such power that make money from you being hurt. I'm not talking administration or doctors or nurses. I'm talking about those that just have peices of paper that say owner.

Then theres companies that make money only if you don't get treatment. Conflict of interest much?

I don't get why the majority of americans can't seem to question the regime they are ruled by.
 
I am gonna disagree with you on why people go into the medical profession.
The amount of work to become a doctor, the additional work to become a specialist - it can eat up a decade of your life.
The schooling is nothing to sneeze at either. You don't get that diploma unless you are smart.
While I won't disagree that there is a number of people that start the schooling process with dreams of wealth at the front of there ambitions, I venture to guess that these people get weeded out by the process of becoming a medical professional.
There are some things that if you are not born with a love or fascination with, you just can't do. I think that the schooling these people go through helps to sort people with a love of biology and medicine to the top of there class.

Of course, I also can't deny that there are doctors that have been hardened over the years and NOW that they are practicing there chief motivation is money.
These people exist. I think that once, many years ago, they were idealists. I bet these people can tell a pretty good story of how one goes from being a naive idealist to a hardened cash hungry oaf.
Before judging them consider: the costs of becoming a doctor. Do you know what sort of college loans these people have over there heads? The stress of keeping there practice afloat (consider that the insurance pays them what the insurance wants to pay them). The hours they keep.

The idea that I am trying to bring to the conversation is that the costs of medical procedures is important.
One of the underlying themes of nationalized health care is that it would be (effectively) free.
But it isn't free. It won't be free. It cannot be free.

I think I acted like a jerk.
But, I am in good company. Health insurance companies have us believing that a visit to the doctor only costs $20. We have been trained to believe that the real costs for these things are the copayments.
 
I'm not a fine print expert, so I asked my docs. None had anything positive to say about universal health care.
Fine, said some, for five minute consults for patients w/a simple cold, or standard med maintenance appts for asthma/diabetes, but major suxor for those w/a serious illness, and even worse for those who get seriously ill, and need a diagnosis.
Many said it will be similar to an HMO, and added that, near the top of a very long list of reasons they're not "in" for this is that so many diagnostic tests will require approval from a board. Same for certain meds.

From the patient's perspective, they have the option to pay for tests out of pocket while they wait for a board's decision, but if they're unable to afford it, they, and their doc, have to wait.
If a test is denied by the board, both doc and patient can wait through the appeal process. If the appeal is denied, as with the meds, the patient can either pay, or simply do without.
From the doc's perspective, a delay or denial of many of their diagnostic tools, higher patient quotas, the addition of more forms, having to deal with more agencies, will impair their ability to their job.
Participating docs' income will be regulated, and, combined with all the above, "better" docs will not want to participate. (Though there could be "fines" imposed on those who choose to not play.)

Marginal docs, red tape wound around tests and meds, quotas, less face time per patient, and the care provided will suffer, and so will the patients.
 
well if cuba can manage it i think we should be able to. If canada, uk and france can manage it, i think we should be able to. that would be a fucking disgrace if we couldnt.
 
I agree that there are some people who do it for the love of helping people, but like you said at this point with the cost of schooling (which also seems way too high, but only for "professors" at universities) it's hard not to do it for the money. It's not just one thing that needs to be fixed, it needs to be fixed from the bottom up. Same with teachers, who don't get paid nearly enough. People who do it, do it for the love of teaching - or because they have tenure and can't be fired (something I also think is wrong because it takes out the drive). At this point less people want to teach because of the pay grade.

Doctors are important. Are they thousands of dollars for a small amount of time important? I guess it depends on if you have the money.

Teachers are important. They are definitely worth more money than they are being paid now, considering they shape the future (and the doctors we need).

I think the priorities need to be checked and rebalanced, and I think that's what the future will eventually show.
 
Yes, we can quite often get them. We wait on our treatments for a long time sometimes, unless it's life threatening or you can't work. People are seeing specialists down there because they can skip the wait if they want to pay (which is an important part of nationalized healthcare). My primary arguement is that profit margins should not have to do with peoples health. Nationalizing is the easiest way, but I agree not optimal. It is better than the system that makes your country pay more per person, but have a sicker population that won't live as long.
 
that's where reform comes in. and oversight, and cutting stuff that doesn't work. also, i don't think Barack is blaming one side or the other, it's more that it needs to be fixed so let's do it.
 
My point is, there are a million bad things happening to good people around the world as I'm typing this. But that doesn't mean I want the money I've worked hard for to be forced into helping those people.


But you have no problem taking my money to help out other people. How nice of you.
 
how about when they get a good bill of health they go on with their life? You seem to have bought into what the c.e.o.s were selling. Either that or youre one of those who benefit from this corrupt system. Why the fuck are you so concerned about the costs? youll barely feel any backfire from this and in return millions of lives will be improved.
 
I don't care how many people "abuse" the system like this. If one person out of 10000 is diagnosed early, then it's worth it. Why do you think your own doctor said that it's usual for people with chronic headaches to get that kind of diagnostic done? because sometimes they do find something, and sometimes those findings save lives. You would be telling a different story if they had found something. And don't say "but they didn't" , becasue sometimes they do.
 
Sorry, I guess I'm just not as smart as you.



http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html

I've already said that national health care wouldn't work in the states, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work and that it can't be better than what the States have.
 
Back
Top