Bizarre Health Care Reactions

[Jerome Scuggs]

Post script. I am very, very aware that we live in society. I am also aware that there exists a class of people above and outside society, cut off from normal societal means of communication, who claim to know more than us in order to command us. When hurricane Katrina hit, chertoff made his grand, brilliant decision on whether to intervene by checking the news. He read the headline - new Orleans dodged the bullet - and decided to not take action. Meanwhile, in society, the local wal-marts received a telephone call: open your stores and give people anything they need.

I am a firm believer in society. Not so much in government.

Edit: I'm posting from my phone so it's hard to go back and edit posts. Apologies for triple posting!

Edit 2: Conc, I had a question- do you think your father is a good engineer because he follows government procedure, or simply because he is a good engineer?

[genocidal]

I buy into some Rights Malthus too, Jerome. Glad to see we're broaching something outside of the run-of-the-mill socialized health care proponents vs. wark debate that happens here interminably. Unfortunately I don't have much else to add at this point, other than to give you props for striking that chord.

[Mattey]

Since I'm educating you for free, you might as well get your money's worth. If you follow from the assertion that healthcare is a right, you wind up with the conclusion that there exists a class of humans with no rights - doctors.

This is a fallacy. Do you know which one?

[Mattey]

Since I'm educating you for free, you might as well get your money's worth.

And this is hilarious. I guess I am getting my money's worth...

[Mattey]

Jesus, that's retarded on so many levels. Level the first: nobody would hold a gun to the doctor's head and tell him he HAS to treat anybody. To say that a doctor would forfeit his rights is disingenuous at best. Level the second: doctors get paid to treat people, it's their job. If anything they'd make more money with more patients.

You haven't addressed anything I've brought up. Now, it's your turn to ask questions, I'll answer in Jerome Scuggs style.

[Mattey]

Edit 2: Conc, I had a question- do you think your father is a good engineer because he follows government procedure, or simply because he is a good engineer?

I'll field this one.

See, I was pondering this the other day and I thought, wouldn't we be better off if nobody ever engineered anything? Because after all, bridges are engineered and they often fall. Wouldn't it be better to have never had a bridge at all?

But then I realized that if Rockefeller had owned and commissioned the bridge he would have never employed such shotty engineers, and it would have never collapsed.

But then I thought that without bridges we wouldn't need cars to cross them and after all cars cause pollution and pollution is bad. So it would indeed be better if the bridge had never been built at all.

[genocidal]

Jesus, that's retarded on so many levels. Level the first: nobody would hold a gun to the doctor's head and tell him he HAS to treat anybody. To say that a doctor would forfeit his rights is disingenuous at best.

Why? Doctors are forced in our current system to treat patients. Mostly it's E.R. doctors but some doctors are forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid when they rather would not. A fully socialized system, depending on levels of coverage, would force all doctors (outside of cosmetic and others not covered by the government) to treat patients that show up at their door. How is that disingenuous? It's a fact.

Level the second: doctors get paid to treat people, it's their job. If anything they'd make more money with more patients.

Now we're getting to being disingenuous. More patients=/=more money. Lots of doctors hate taking certain types of insurance because they may not cover things or it may be a pain in the ass to get them to. Lots of doctors have quit accepting Medicare and Medicaid because it doesn't pay for shit. So no, more patients does not equal more pay. In fact, it will probably result in less pay. If you don't believe me look at the pay levels for American doctors versus Canadian doctors.

Please don't respond with, "Boo-hoo everyone is crying for those rich doctors not padding their $200,000 salaries." Jobs are worth as much as people are willing to pay for them - that's why athletes making millions is nothing to lament, unless you're going to lament the fact that too many people like sports. That argument is a red herring - it is a complete non-issue as to whether or not you think doctors are overpaid. You're the one who said that health care should be a right - Jerome was the one who pointed out that giving out rights willy-nilly is bad business for those of us who are concerned with real rights and liberties, and not made-up ones like health care.

[Mattey]

Good points.

But why would socialized health care necessarily drive down doctor's pay? If everyone was paying into the same system, with less administrative costs, wouldn't it follow that pay would go up?

[Squeezer]

Why? Doctors are forced in our current system to treat patients.

No they aren't forced by the system (they could say fuck it and open a private practice if they're good enough) but they are forced by the Hippocratic oath and the allure of making a pretty decent compensation for the work they do.

Mostly it's E.R. doctors but some doctors are forced to accept Medicare and Medicaid when they rather would not. A fully socialized system, depending on levels of coverage, would force all doctors (outside of cosmetic and others not covered by the government) to treat patients that show up at their door.How is that disingenuous? It's a fact.

I suppose that's true, though private practice wouldn't disappear over night and they could choose what kind of insurance they're willing to accept.

Now we're getting to being disingenuous. More patients=/=more money.

Agreed, more paid bills == more money. The less people have to pay a middle man to settle their medical bills for them, the more direct profit a hospital will see, as well as adding more money in the pockets of the previously uninsured. If the option comes from taxpayers (and wealthy taxpayers at that) and is not driven by profit, but expenses as needed, people will theoretically be able to receive care without worrying about their premium rates.

Lots of doctors hate taking certain types of insurance because they may not cover things or it may be a pain in the ass to get them to. Lots of doctors have quit accepting Medicare and Medicaid because it doesn't pay for shit.

Again, which doctors? Private medicine will continue to exist and make money. The ones that do choose to accept the new public option will get a buttload of new patients with money saved from not paying insurance companies. They'll actually be able to afford their bills, granted in part to the long dick of government.

So no, more patients does not equal more pay. In fact, it will probably result in less pay. If you don't believe me look at the pay levels for American doctors versus Canadian doctors.

Some American doctors are paid more than Canadian doctors. That might have more to do with malpractice insurance rates being through the roof, etc.

Please don't respond with, "Boo-hoo everyone is crying for those rich doctors not padding their $200,000 salaries." Jobs are worth as much as people are willing to pay for them - that's why athletes making millions is nothing to lament, unless you're going to lament the fact that too many people like sports.

Well, I personally don't think doctors, like lawyers, should make that much but you're right, that's far out of my hands and I'm not going to spend time dwelling on how unfair the world is sometimes. Those people worked hard and deserve to be compensated as people see fit. Doctors aren't the problem.

Drug and insurance corporations on the other hand, are making a killing (ha!) on people's addictions and misfortunes. When criminal organizations play that way, they get locked up. How is that not privilege?

That argument is a red herring - it is a complete non-issue as to whether or not you think doctors are overpaid. You're the one who said that health care should be a right - Jerome was the one who pointed out that giving out rights willy-nilly is bad business for those of us who are concerned with real rights and liberties, and not made-up ones like health care.

The right to LIFE is garunteed in the constitution. "We the people...promote the general welfare..."

You know how it goes. Whether YOU think it's a right or not, the constitution is very clear about protecting citizens of the United States. This is one way some of us believe it could happen. Certainly better than some stupid ass color code.

[Galleleo]

Socialized healthcare doesn't mean private practice cannot exist any more. We have private practices in the Netherlands, you just know that it will cost you more and if I am correct, insurance still covers a part, what you have to pay yourself just becomes more. But private practice can still exist in socialized healthcare.

[genocidal]

No they aren't forced by the system (they could say fuck it and open a private practice if they're good enough) but they are forced by the Hippocratic oath and the allure of making a pretty decent compensation for the work they do.

Private practitioners are also compelled to accept Medicare and Medicaid in many cases - such as areas where hospitals do not staff doctors of a particular kind. Also, all doctors in America are required to be "on staff" at a hospital with the only exceptions being those people that live in rural enough areas to where there is no hospital. This doesn't mean that the doctors are employed by the hospital but that they have on-calls there and their patients are referred there. Again, this is compulsory.

I suppose that's true, though private practice wouldn't disappear over night and they could choose what kind of insurance they're willing to accept.

No it wouldn't disappear overnight but it was be pared down quickly. More on this later.*

Agreed, more paid bills == more money. The less people have to pay a middle man to settle their medical bills for them, the more direct profit a hospital will see, as well as adding more money in the pockets of the previously uninsured. If the option comes from taxpayers (and wealthy taxpayers at that) and is not driven by profit, but expenses as needed, people will theoretically be able to receive care without worrying about their premium rates.

To be clear I'm not defending the current system. I believe it needs an overhaul, but not in the Finland/Canadian/British mold (which I don't think is at issue here but I can't tell).

Again, which doctors? Private medicine will continue to exist and make money. The ones that do choose to accept the new public option will get a buttload of new patients with money saved from not paying insurance companies. They'll actually be able to afford their bills, granted in part to the long dick of government.

It's not that rosy of a picture. Just because private insurance providers won't be profiting off the health-care industry as much anymore doesn't mean that nobody will. Our government and country are too much against socialism for them to have a truly government-run health-care sector (which I think is what you want).

What we'll probably get is a bunch of contracts that the government will give out to private conglomerates. To be clear, this is what I'm in favor of if done on the right terms. Kaiser Permanente (in California) has been experimenting with types of coverage that have shown success on a small-scale that I hope can be implemented somehow. Basically it's HMOs with incentive-laden policies for keeping patients healthy rather than scaring them off with deductibles, etc. I'm admittedly no expert but what I've read sounds encouraging.

Some American doctors are paid more than Canadian doctors. That might have more to do with malpractice insurance rates being through the roof, etc.

Malpractice rate are high but it doesn't account for the huge differential. This is just for GP, one of the lowest salaried doctors. American doctors make their bread on specialization and that money comes from private HMOs building cancer institutes and not government grants. I'm not convinced that our research will keep up pace if health care is under the auspices of government (because it will snuff out specializations that are sometimes unnecessary but may be important for discovery). Again, more on this at the end.*

Well, I personally don't think doctors, like lawyers, should make that much but you're right, that's far out of my hands and I'm not going to spend time dwelling on how unfair the world is sometimes. Those people worked hard and deserve to be compensated as people see fit. Doctors aren't the problem.

Agreed, though I don't pass judgments on what people should make relative to what society sees fit to pay them.

Drug and insurance corporations on the other hand, are making a killing (ha!) on people's addictions and misfortunes. When criminal organizations play that way, they get locked up. How is that not privilege?

Some of these drugs do just flat-out help people. Personally, I'm an anti-drug type of person like a lot of people seem to be (wark fervently). However, I have seen what drugs can do to improve peoples' lives and therefore who am I to say they should just man up and be miserable? Fortunately for me alcohol is all I really need to stave off misery in the short-term.

The right to LIFE is garunteed in the constitution. "We the people...promote the general welfare..."

You know how it goes. Whether YOU think it's a right or not, the constitution is very clear about protecting citizens of the United States. This is one way some of us believe it could happen. Certainly better than some stupid ass color code.

Right to life says nothing about quality of life. I won't go too in-depth here because we obviously don't, and won't, agree. But I do applaud Jerome for bringing up the fact that giving out too many "rights" oftentimes results in a net loss for all concerned. (He gave the example of doctors - I'll take it a step further and say that government right to health care will create a de facto decrease in private options. Even if private health care still exists it will be drastically reduced and will probably mostly consist of shady doctors that give $50 abortions. More at end.*)

*Here is my brief explanation for why private practice will largely disappear in a government-run system:

This is what it looks like in Finland:

Finland also has a much smaller private medical sector which accounts for about 14 percent ot total health care spending. Only 8% of doctors choose to work in private practice, and some of these also choose to do some work in the public sector. Private sector patients can claim a contribution from KELA towards their private medical costs (including dentistry) if they choose to be treated in the more expensive private sector, or they can join private insurance funds.

Source.

The point is, you give people less options and they're going to gravitate towards the norm. Unfortunately, most people see "health care" as a total package - whatever they need to get healthy. It doesn't quite work like that (though our system's problem now is that they try to make it work like that). A government-plan will inevitably be shittier than your average private policy in the status quo. People won't know or care enough until they actually get cancer to be concerned with this.

It's the same reason why military personnel (even high level ones with enough money to pay for good insurance out of pocket) still go to the V.A. Most people simply don't care enough and will take whatever is baseline. What our overhaul needs to do is encourage education on policies somehow and get people to understand that "you get what you pay for." Then people can decide how important their health is to them. Until then we'll either have a government-run health care system that sucks and everyone hates because it's shitty or we'll have a bankrupt government-run health care system and we'll be right back at square one.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Edit 2: Conc, I had a question- do you think your father is a good engineer because he follows government procedure, or simply because he is a good engineer?

Kind of a strange question. I don't find it really that hard to answer, since my immediate answer would be "because he is a good engineer." He's a true scientist, but one of those "on-site" scientists who still, in retirement, goes out and walks miles of roads each spring, summer and fall to measure cracks (Sounds glamorous, I know), then publish his findings. And speak. And everything else he can do try and spread what little piece of knowledge he uncovered. He takes great pride in it and is consistently recognized by his peers and ex-students.

To me, the first part seems a bit like you're baiting a bit--but the government part of his job is important too. The government supports setting overall standards so that there's a decent uniformity to the work that gets done across the nation. Standards, homey. It's all about standards. Any good computer guy could tell you. If you want the species to get better, it's better if we all can speak a similar language (figuratively, of course).

Really interesting thread read.

[Summa]

If you sit around and think about it, you can deduce that humans think, and going further you develop property rights, etc... and from that I derive certain ethical and moral observations.

You seem to be under the impression that private property and thus property rights are inherent in human nature. I would have to disagree. Private propety is societally imposed. I understand that you will argue Locke claiming that "I own myself and the work I produce, when I combine my work with something that also becomes mine...etc". I disagree with that as do some other scholars and I won't waste time bickering about that unless you want to.

Shit, you could spend fifty bucks at walmart to buy a device that teaches literacy. It's that easy.

I can't promise equality of status - some people get the short straw, some people get the long straw, most get straws between those extremes. But I can promise equality of opportunity - no closed doors if you really set your mind to it. And I would also argue that the population of truly destitute people would be vastly smaller than status quo.

I am sorry, but this is not equality of opportunity. I believe you got the legal terms equality of opportunity and equality of outcome switched in your head. What is the primary reason why this CANNOT be quality of opportunity? You have to purchase something in order to become educated. This is a common misconception about quality of opportunity. Most people would say "well it is available the same for everyone so it is equal". Wrong. This line of thought does not take into account those who have no purchasing power (of course in capitalistic jeromia those people are as good as dead). There are other societal and life situations that would prevent people from purchasing their education I am sure. Such as, I don't know, a cycle of illiteracy! Hey my parents didn't educate themselves so they can't read to find out about this new education method, and thus I am screwed.

Argh don't have time to finish the thought because I have to go to work, more on this later.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Why the hell does everyone assume that generous people who choose to, say, teach literacy for free mysteriously dissapear in a stateless society? The capitalist notion of "exchange" is not pegged to material goods. If someone teaches a child to read in exchange for the good feeling he gets, then there is your 'altruist'.

Squeezer: the founding fathers definitely wrote about what they meant for general welfare, your interpretation is infinitely regressive - it could be warped to mean just about anything. You do have a loophole through the commerce clause, though.

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law – which may be an isolated case – is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. ~ Claude Frédéric Bastiat

the dude wrote that motherfucking 200 years ago.

(summa: I just consumed mass quantities of cough syrup because I am sick. I have never encountered someone who doesn't accept property rights as a given so I will try to start poking around your post tomorrow. That goes for the rest of you as well.)

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

The capitalist notion of "exchange" is not pegged to material goods.

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. Not to get all nit-picky on "what the definition of capitalism is," but in most everything I've read, and the people I've come in contact with, capitalism is a system based completely (at it's core) by exchange of wealth. Plain and simple. You can argue that you can be "wealthy in smiles" or whatever, but that'd be disingenuous. Capitalism is about cash and things that can be exchanged for cash.