TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Opinions on Obama health care initiatives
Pages (9): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

Opinions on Obama health care initiatives

?

It's a pretty interesting situation, and even the Republicans are saying that a reform is needed. It's pretty obvious, especially in being in the health care field, that the current situation is simply not sustainable. I never quite understood an industry that supposedly is there to "insure" the health of individuals makes their primary profit off of dropping those individuals that they're supposed to help "insure."

Regardless, Obama has some interesting ideas on reforming health care, and I think the Republicans have a few good ideas themselves. I think it's important to listen to both sides, and even incorporate or compromise as needed on certain issues. So when the Republicans decide to give us some good information like the following regarding what they would like to do with reforming health care:

quote:

GOP Rep. Roy Blunt has now said Republicans won�t offer a health care bill of their own, breaking a previous promise. Worse, it turns out Blunt is chair of something called the �House GOP Health Care Solutions Group.� Blunt�s quote went up online late yesterday evening: quote: �Our bill is never going to get to the floor, so why confuse the focus? We clearly have principles; we could have language, but why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work they�ve got to whatever we�re offering right now?� That�s a pretty stark admission that Republicans won�t introduce their own bill solely because they think it�s better politics to keep the focus on the Democrats. It gets better. Head over to the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group�s Web site, and you�ll find prominent video of Blunt vowing the GOP is �drafting our own legislation.� http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...alth-care-bill/

why, we should respectfully listen. Because such solutions offered by opponents like this are always helpful, especially since their alternative is equivalent to essentially keeping the status quo......

Things I disagree with:

*"Healthcare is a fundamental right" IMHO, healthcare is a service that everyone must pay for. My rights end where someone else's rights begin. A doctor is a human making a living to support his life/family with his skillset, just like me. I don't see why someone can make an argument that something that you must pay for is a human right. Why should it be the obligation of one class of citizens to pay for a service for another class of citizens if that is a right? Doesn't a right exist without a contingency that it be funded by someone else?
*Yes, if you have a medical emergency, a hospital can not and will not turn you away.
*Yes, medical cost inflation is off the hook and is a drain on everyone.

Things I agree with:

*It is wrong for insurance companies to be able to cherry pick the healthiest people to charge high premiums to while denying coverage to the people who actually need it most. That is counter-intuitive, backwards, illogical and wrong. They should not be profit-driven institutions.


Things I struggle with:

*On one hand I see it as acceptable that a person's healthcare coverage should not be tied to their current job. They should not have to stay with a job they hate simply because they will lose health insurance without it. In addition, a person who is unemployed should not necessarily be crushed by having no health insurance because they lost their job (but isn't that what COBRA is for--even if only a temporary solution?). On the other hand, if an employer is providing health insurance, why shouldn't it be tied to the job?

*Our society notoriously pays for too many needless tests and expensive frills in the hospital. We pay exorbitant costs for end-of-life care. However, this is a touchy issue because how can you put a price tag on life? I certainly don't want the government making that decision.

Furthermore(and not so much health related), I maintain that our government has an expense problem, not an income problem. We cannot tax our way back to prosperity much as we cannot dig ourselves into debt to finance our lives and hope to find prosperity at the bottom of the hole.

I hate the idea that I will pay for the health insurance for currently uninsured ppl with taxes on my employer provided health coveragea, which is currently not subject to tax (my guess is that is about another 500-1000 in taxes a year for me). I like the idea of universal health, but I don't like how everything is provided almost exclusively by taxing ppl who do well for themselves (especially since I will accrue almost no benefit from the increase). If taxing employer provided beneifts actually passes through congress I will assuredly regret my vote for obama.

Support seems to be waning a bit.

quote:

July 24, 2009 For Public, Obama Didn�t Fill in Health Blanks By KEVIN SACK SNELLVILLE, Ga. � As Craig Brown watched President Obama�s news conference on Wednesday night on his TiVo-equipped television, he kept hitting the pause button so he could throw questions at the image frozen on the screen. How much will this health care plan really cost, he asked. How can we cover nearly everybody without higher taxes or debt? Who is going to decide which treatments are allowed? Why cannot they just get rid of the waste without changing the whole system? Like many in the country, Mr. Brown, a 36-year-old father of four who lives in an Atlanta suburb, has grown increasingly anxious about Washington�s efforts to reconfigure health care and what it may mean for his middle-class family. Although he and his wife, Judith, supported John McCain in the presidential race, they find Mr. Obama an earnest and compelling pitchman. But they remain frustrated by the lack of available detail about his plan�s contours and cost. They say they feel they are being asked to buy on spec from a government they do not trust. And they have lots of questions. �The bottom line is there are so many unknowns,� said Ms. Brown, 35, who works part time at her church and cares for her young children. �What we do know is there is going to be more government control, and with more control you�re going to have fewer choices. It�s an innate part of being American to have those choices.� A similar unease was apparent in three other living rooms where families gathered to watch the news conference. An affluent small-business owner from near Chicago, a middle-class manager from Denver, and an uninsured worker from Cleveland each expressed skepticism that change would improve their lots. Although she may well benefit from Mr. Obama�s plan to subsidize health insurance for the working poor, Rowena Ventura, the uninsured worker from Cleveland, wondered whether she could afford it. �I�m worried because they�re talking about forcing people to buy insurance,� said Ms. Ventura, a registered Democrat and part-time health care worker. �You just can�t ask any more of me. You just can�t.� Ms. Ventura, 44, who also attends community college, has moved her ailing mother into the living room of the house she shares with her disabled husband. She said she recently discovered a lump on her left foot but cannot afford to see a doctor about it. Yet she is cynical about Mr. Obama�s prescription. �You see,� she said, gesturing at Mr. Obama on the television, �he�s saying he wants to continue private insurance, but then he says they�re part of the problem. Well, which is it? It�s just ridiculous.� Dean Raschke, a McCain voter who owns two Chicago-area businesses, one providing roadside assistance and the other making debit cards, said he worried that Washington would end up taxing the health benefits he provides to his 50 employees. He said he also feared that Congress would raise his income taxes to pay for the plan, although his earnings are well below the $1-million-a-year threshold now being considered. �I have very conflicted emotions because I do want to help people who aren�t as fortunate as we are,� said Mr. Raschke, 38, watching the news conference with his wife, Jill. �But I have a big issue about what this health care plan would do to small businesses like mine that already have a health care plan. I�m afraid that people could be unintentionally harmed.� Recent polls have detected a modest slippage in public support for the kinds of changes being considered in Congress, and in Mr. Obama�s handling of health care. The president has made the case for his plan at scripted events each day this week, including at a town-hall-style meeting in Cleveland on Thursday. Mr. Obama acknowledged the spectrum of concerns during Wednesday�s news conference. �I understand that people are feeling uncertain about this,� he said. �They feel anxious, partly because we�ve just become so cynical about what government can accomplish.� He said he understood that people might prefer the devil they know. But the president�s expression of empathy provided scant comfort to the Browns. They still did not feel they were getting straight talk, as when Mr. Obama responded to a question about what Americans would have to sacrifice. �He said they�re going to have to give up paying for things they don�t need, and that was an awesome answer for a politician,� Mr. Brown said sardonically. �You mean I don�t have to give up anything I already have?� The Browns are Jamaican immigrants who met in college in Florida. Mr. Brown gained citizenship in 1999; his wife expects to do so next year. The family is insured through his job at a family-owned trophy shop, where he earns about $38,000 a year. Mr. Brown said he realized that his escalating insurance premiums, which have doubled since 2006, had suppressed his wages. He noted that he and his wife were still struggling to pay off $3,000 in uncovered medical expenses from the birth of their youngest child. But the Browns said Mr. Obama and the Democrats had not convinced them of the need for radical change. They said the notion of establishing a new government health plan to compete against private insurers seemed un-American. They questioned the wisdom and fairness of taxing the rich. And they said individuals should bear more responsibility for staying healthy. �I know the system is not perfect, but I�m not completely convinced it�s broken,� Mr. Brown said. �And even if it�s broken, I�m not sure the government is the solution.� Unlike the Browns, Liz Wessen, 32, a manager for a market research firm in Denver, supported Mr. Obama in November. But that good will does not negate her nervousness about the money being spent in Washington. �My only concern is that this comes on the heels of the stimulus package,� Ms. Wessen said from her home in the Highlands neighborhood. �Where is this money supposed to be coming from? I�m not sure if this is the best time to fix another enormous problem.� Watching the president, she said she was pleased to hear that the Democrats wanted to prevent insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and to allow those who change jobs to hold on to their coverage. But she said she wanted more specifics and wished that Mr. Obama would dictate terms to Congress rather than merely prod lawmakers to act. �I think the press conference was more convincing people of his motives than it was to actually explain the program,� Ms. Wessen said. �I expected it to be more.�

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka *Yes, if you have a medical emergency, a hospital can not and will not turn you away.

While this may be true they really only do the minimum necessary to save your life. I recall an insured of mine who suffered a severe degloving of his left arm in a vehicle roll-over. He required a bone graft, muscle graft, nerve graft and skin graft in order to save the arm. Total cost of the surgeries was $197,000 USD. Unfortunately, for my insured his maximum for medical coverage (on his automobile insurance) was $100,000 CND. On compasionate grounds I decided to extend his coverage... good thing I did too because the hospital had advised me that if this gentleman could not pay the $197,000 they would simply amputate his arm. I remember that conversation as if it were yesterday...
MH - "wait, the arm can easily be saved but you're going to amputate?"
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital "social worker" - "if nobody's paying we go with the least expensive option to prevent death."
MH - "but the arm can be saved."
TJUH - "not unless someone pays for it."

Sorry... but in a society with as much wealth as the US that is simply fucked up! You're priorities are shameful.

quote:

*It is wrong for insurance companies to be able to cherry pick the healthiest people to charge high premiums to while denying coverage to the people who actually need it most. That is counter-intuitive, backwards, illogical and wrong. They should not be profit-driven institutions.

It takes a lot of capital and risk to set up an insurance company. You would be hard pressed to find investors willing to put up that kind of money without the possibility of profit. The principle way for insures to make profit is to insure only the "good risks" or to only insure the "bad risks" at a premium sufficiently high as to ensure a profit is made despite the claims cost... for someone with cancer the premiums would likely be too high to be affordable, as the claims payments would be very high and an absolute certainty (in fact, it would be more affordable to pay for treatment out of pocket as this would remove the additional costs of funding the insurer's overhead and profit). All private companies are profit driven. The only way to ensure that all people be covered is to remove private corporations from the system.

quote:

*Our society notoriously pays for too many needless tests and expensive frills in the hospital. We pay exorbitant costs for end-of-life care. However, this is a touchy issue because how can you put a price tag on life? I certainly don't want the government making that decision.

Indeed, most socialized health care systems deliver better care at lower cost (because you're not paying for the profits of the hospitals and the insurers, and having a single payer system allows for better prices to be negotiated on equipment and drugs). In all socialized systems there are services and drugs that are not covered because of policy decisions and or cost-benefit dispairity. Those services not covered are still available; however, on a user-pay basis (for which most people will carry some supplemental private health insurance).

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard While this may be true they really only do the minimum necessary to save your life. I recall an insured of mine who suffered a severe degloving of his left arm in a vehicle roll-over. He required a bone graft, muscle graft, nerve graft and skin graft in order to save the arm. Total cost of the surgeries was $197,000 USD. Unfortunately, for my insured his maximum for medical coverage (on his automobile insurance) was $100,000 CND. On compasionate grounds I decided to extend his coverage... good thing I did too because the hospital had advised me that if this gentleman could not pay the $197,000 they would simply amputate his arm. I remember that conversation as if it were yesterday... MH - "wait, the arm can easily be saved but you're going to amputate?" Thomas Jefferson University Hospital "social worker" - "if nobody's paying we go with the least expensive option to prevent death." MH - "but the arm can be saved." TJUH - "not unless someone pays for it."

that's a real credit to you craig.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard (because you're not paying for the profits of the hospitals and the insurers, and having a single payer system allows for better prices to be negotiated on equipment and drugs).

this is something i never see raised in the discussion. i dont understand why there's such a fervent belief that the private system, which has to run at a profit, is supposed to provide cheaper services in a field like medicine. its such a specialist field that meaningful competition simply doesn't exist. doctors and hospitals dont cut their prices to attract customers. there are no 50%-off sales.

i pay a 2% medicare levy at tax time. i don't feel as though the evil crushing of the communist health system is too much to bear.

I'm not sure how much I buy this "socialized medicine results in higher taxes" shit either. Of course it does if all other things are equal; however, my marginal tax rate (federal) in Canada is 26%... in the US it would be 30%. I would imagine this is due to differing priorities.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's a real credit to you craig.

Thanks, but honestly I cannot fathom how anyone can justify cutting a man's arm off because he didn't have enough money... that's just sick... I honestly cannot imagine the mindset that allows someone to think that a couple of %age points of gross profit is more important then a man's fuckin' arm.

well, that's the thing though isn't it? an insurance worker employed in the US would have sent the hospital a hacksaw, and then put it on their client's bill

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm not sure how much I buy this "socialized medicine results in higher taxes" shit either. Of course it does if all other things are equal; however, my marginal tax rate (federal) in Canada is 26%... in the US it would be 30%. I would imagine this is due to differing priorities.

The US doesn't have a marginal rate of 30%. Plus, the Provincial taxes in Canada are much higher than State personal income taxes in the US. Certain provinces have set their highest marginal personal income tax rates near 20%. By contrast, no state in the US has set its highest marginal income tax rate above 10%. Plus, I don't know how the deduction system works in Canada, but every gets to take about 8K off of their income for taxation purposes (i.e., 100K income is 92K taxable). Plus, our income tax system allows people to deduction expenses for mortgage interest, student loan interest, state property taxes, and other various expenses. In reality, most people are taxed on much less than their actually economic income. I'm not sure how Canada compares.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that's a real credit to you craig. this is something i never see raised in the discussion. i dont understand why there's such a fervent belief that the private system, which has to run at a profit, is supposed to provide cheaper services in a field like medicine. its such a specialist field that meaningful competition simply doesn't exist. doctors and hospitals dont cut their prices to attract customers. there are no 50%-off sales. i pay a 2% medicare levy at tax time. i don't feel as though the evil crushing of the communist health system is too much to bear.

I think your belief is the sole reason why it is easy for the government to have people believe that it can't be competitively priced, like any other good and service. Explain how this specialist field existed and worked before the present day system. If we have gotten so far into our existance without it, what makes you think that it is absolutely necessary for our survival today?

No one should be denied health insurance no matter their medical situation.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I think your belief is the sole reason why it is easy for the government to have people believe that it can't be competitively priced, like any other good and service. Explain how this specialist field existed and worked before the present day system. If we have gotten so far into our existance without it, what makes you think that it is absolutely necessary for our survival today?

Compete competitively? Yea right. I went to a lung specialist a few months ago for a chronic cough. He identified the problem immediately, but then, wanted me to schedule a full body scan. I didn't need a full body scan, and this over-testing is rampant in the system. The more test they run, the more they can charge the insurance companies, the high the premiums. Is it no wonder why insurance premium inflation is so high?

Healthcare isn't a damn commodity to be bought and sold. It involves REAL people. It's not all about "the market" and supply and demand. FFS...lower the costs, and provide universal coverage. Is that too much to ask for?

Re: WOW I jut

quote:

Originally posted by ******** Wow I just ran across this factoid and found it to be stageringly relevant and lend some potential credence to not only health care reform but the economic slide in part caused by the subprime mortgage crisis... 50 per cent of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in the U. S. in 2001 were due to medical bills, with an estimated two million Americans affected each year. source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health...3845/story.html

that's actually not surprising to me. unfortunate as it is, medical bills are insane. I had a 17K bill for an emergency room visit. thankfully, i'm fully insured under my employer's plan; so, i paid only 75 dollars of the 17K bill. not bad!

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT I think your belief is the sole reason why it is easy for the government to have people believe that it can't be competitively priced, like any other good and service.

what "belief"? the facts speak for themselves. the US has the highest costing healthcare of any comparable country. that isn't a matter for debate, so how is that "competitive" environment keeping costs down presently?

some things just don't lend themselves well to to private enterprise.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ndamerica/view/

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Explain how this specialist field existed and worked before the present day system.

i don't understand that question.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT If we have gotten so far into our existance without it, what makes you think that it is absolutely necessary for our survival today?

again, im not quite sure what you're saying. there are many countries in the world with other systems that work far better than the one you have. what im curious about is why some americans think they simply can't do something as well as other nations. that's the last opinion i expect to hear from the yanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Compete competitively? Yea right. I went to a lung specialist a few months ago for a chronic cough. He identified the problem immediately, but then, wanted me to schedule a full body scan. I didn't need a full body scan, and this over-testing is rampant in the system. The more test they run, the more they can charge the insurance companies, the high the premiums. Is it no wonder why insurance premium inflation is so high? Healthcare isn't a damn commodity to be bought and sold. It involves REAL people. It's not all about "the market" and supply and demand. FFS...lower the costs, and provide universal coverage. Is that too much to ask for?

In theory, the market provides better incentives towards efficient behavior than does any kind of "universal coverage." However, these advantages are largely undermined by the widespread use of insurance, the moral hazard of which allows insured individuals to make inefficient choices regarding their own care at minimal cost to themselves. The market also fails with regard to those who are not insured (or at least the vast majority of them), since efficient market operation depends on all parties having enough resources to accurately express the extent to which they value the goods or services being exchanged.

Universal healthcare eliminates the latter problem by not requiring patients to pay for the services that they use, but for precisely that reason it exacerbates the former. Take that full body scan, for instance. Is it covered by universal healthcare? If so, then no one whose doctor proposes such a wasteful test has any incentive to decline it, since they will not have to pay for it. Moreover, while an insurance company has at least some incentive to refuse to cover the test (e.g., higher profits, keeping other clients' premiums down to compete in the insurance market), the employees of an administrative bureaucracy most likely have none at all.

Thus, the most probable result is that doctors, who have an incentive to recommend unnecessary tests (so that they can bill for them, and also to limit their potential liability), will do so at an even higher rate. Patients have no incentive to refuse the test, even those few who know it is not worth the expense have no incentive to refuse since they do not have to pay for the cost of the test anyway. Bureaucrats are unlikely to refuse the test , so it will be performed even though it produces benefits substantially less than its costs. And even if the administrative scheme were complex enough to empower bureaucrats to refuse to pay for treatments on a case-by-case basis, they would likely refuse almost as many necessary tests as unnecessary tests.

Worse yet, the individual is completely helpless to protect himself from this waste: refusing the test for himself does him no good, since he will still have to pay his proportionate share of the cost of all the other wasteful tests that other people accept.

The bottom line is this: yes, the current health care system is badly in need of reform. However, the issues are extremely complex, and simply providing tax-funded universal coverage is an extremely simplistic approach. It's a serious mistake to ignore the potential efficiency (and distributive) benefits of a market-based approach, but it is equally a mistake to overlook the reasons why the market has generally failed to produce efficient behavior among those who have access to health care and has excluded many people from adequate access entirely.

arbiter, i think you're overlooking the fact that universal coverage systems are normally so strained that this keeps the unnecessary medical procedures to a minimum

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter In theory, the market provides better incentives towards efficient behavior than does any kind of "universal coverage." However, these advantages are largely undermined by the widespread use of insurance, the moral hazard of which allows insured individuals to make inefficient choices regarding their own care at minimal cost to themselves. The market also fails with regard to those who are not insured (or at least the vast majority of them), since efficient market operation depends on all parties having enough resources to accurately express the extent to which they value the goods or services being exchanged. Universal healthcare eliminates the latter problem by not requiring patients to pay for the services that they use, but for precisely that reason it exacerbates the former. Take that full body scan, for instance. Is it covered by universal healthcare? If so, then no one whose doctor proposes such a wasteful test has any incentive to decline it, since they will not have to pay for it. Moreover, while an insurance company has at least some incentive to refuse to cover the test (e.g., higher profits, keeping other clients' premiums down to compete in the insurance market), the employees of an administrative bureaucracy most likely have none at all. Thus, the most probable result is that doctors, who have an incentive to recommend unnecessary tests (so that they can bill for them, and also to limit their potential liability), will do so at an even higher rate. Patients have no incentive to refuse the test, even those few who know it is not worth the expense have no incentive to refuse since they do not have to pay for the cost of the test anyway. Bureaucrats are unlikely to refuse the test , so it will be performed even though it produces benefits substantially less than its costs. And even if the administrative scheme were complex enough to empower bureaucrats to refuse to pay for treatments on a case-by-case basis, they would likely refuse almost as many necessary tests as unnecessary tests. Worse yet, the individual is completely helpless to protect himself from this waste: refusing the test for himself does him no good, since he will still have to pay his proportionate share of the cost of all the other wasteful tests that other people accept. The bottom line is this: yes, the current health care system is badly in need of reform. However, the issues are extremely complex, and simply providing tax-funded universal coverage is an extremely simplistic approach. It's a serious mistake to ignore the potential efficiency (and distributive) benefits of a market-based approach, but it is equally a mistake to overlook the reasons why the market has generally failed to produce efficient behavior among those who have access to health care and has excluded many people from adequate access entirely.

I'm not exactly for tax-payer funded universal coverage. I'm more for a heavily regulated health insurance industry where insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit and no one can be denied coverage. I liken companies which profit from relieving more than they give in health benefits to war profiteers.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN arbiter, i think you're overlooking the fact that universal coverage systems are normally so strained that this keeps the unnecessary medical procedures to a minimum

If only the strain was borne primarily by the unnecessary procedures.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Compete competitively? Yea right. I went to a lung specialist a few months ago for a chronic cough. He identified the problem immediately, but then, wanted me to schedule a full body scan. I didn't need a full body scan, and this over-testing is rampant in the system. The more test they run, the more they can charge the insurance companies, the high the premiums. Is it no wonder why insurance premium inflation is so high?

2 words: tort reform.

Why do you think doctors peform so many extra tests? Because they have to, due to the industry being rampant with ambulance chasing lawyers just waiting for a misdiagnosis so they can get after a multi-million dollar lawsuit; the doctors almost HAVE to do it to protect themselves from bankruptcy. They aren't out scheming for ways to make more money, as Obama suggested those evil pediatricians do with removing tonsils. A limit on lawsuit amounts could vastly bring down healthcare costs.... malpractice insurance is also getting insanely high because of this, which ultimately raises the costs too.

Tort reform would help immensely... however it never will with Democrats in charge because the trial lawyers are the 2nd highest financial contributing group to their party.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss 2 words: tort reform. Why do you think doctors peform so many extra tests? Because they have to, due to the industry being rampant with ambulance chasing lawyers just waiting for a misdiagnosis so they can get after a multi-million dollar lawsuit; the doctors almost HAVE to do it to protect themselves from bankruptcy. They aren't out scheming for ways to make more money, as Obama suggested those evil pediatricians do with removing tonsils. A limit on lawsuit amounts could vastly bring down healthcare costs.... malpractice insurance is also getting insanely high because of this, which ultimately raises the costs too. Tort reform would help immensely... however it never will with Democrats in charge because the trial lawyers are the 2nd highest financial contributing group to their party.

The point is, doctor's and hospitals don't compete. They have no incentive to lower prices, or provide value for treatment.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The point is, doctor's and hospitals don't compete. They have no incentive to lower prices, or provide value for treatment.

yes they do. The problem is that operating expenses are so high there is no choice but to charge as much as they do (well, they could charge less but then doctors wouldn't be driving porsches, and there would be little incentive to going through 10 years of schooling if there wasn't a pretty big payday at the back end). Doctors are service providers like any other provider. They need to build a client base and they compete with other doctors for that business. Hospitals are quite the same. If they didn't compete they wouldn't need to advertise.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss 2 words: tort reform. Why do you think doctors peform so many extra tests? Because they have to, due to the industry being rampant with ambulance chasing lawyers just waiting for a misdiagnosis so they can get after a multi-million dollar lawsuit; the doctors almost HAVE to do it to protect themselves from bankruptcy. They aren't out scheming for ways to make more money, as Obama suggested those evil pediatricians do with removing tonsils. A limit on lawsuit amounts could vastly bring down healthcare costs.... malpractice insurance is also getting insanely high because of this, which ultimately raises the costs too. Tort reform would help immensely... however it never will with Democrats in charge because the trial lawyers are the 2nd highest financial contributing group to their party.

I definitely agree. The government needs to step in an provide a system that doctors can opt into so there liability is limited (except for egregious cases) in exchange for lower fees. This way, it cuts out the insurance and the lawyers. Two groups that shouldn't be as invovled in medical decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 yes they do. The problem is that operating expenses are so high there is no choice but to charge as much as they do (well, they could charge less but then doctors wouldn't be driving porsches, and there would be little incentive to going through 10 years of schooling if there wasn't a pretty big payday at the back end). Doctors are service providers like any other provider. They need to build a client base and they compete with other doctors for that business. Hospitals are quite the same. If they didn't compete they wouldn't need to advertise.

So, where are all the 50% off stock-take sales? Offers of price-matching? 2 for 1 deals? Doctors/hospitals taking pay cuts to gain more clients? When you�re doing work that can only be paid by the insured, what incentive is there to keep costs low when the insurer will foot massive, massive bills anyway?

Don�t get me wrong, I have no problems with people enjoying the fruits of their labour, but I simply don�t buy the argument that hospitals/doctors compete in the same manner that non-specialist sectors of society do. Every segment of the US health system has a privatised, profit-driven mechanic behind it. Why is everyone so surprised when each separate part of that system keeps going up in price? Why are comparable public systems able to offer far better costings, even though they�re the evil, inefficient government? When healthcare isn�t run as a profit-making enterprise (or when there�s a dual system to share the burden), costs remain far lower than anything the US can even dream of.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.