I am officially distubed by the truth of U.S healthcare.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Aug 2011, 10:57 am
wcoltd wrote:
cave_canem wrote:
For those interested, I've found a list of some of the best contributions Canadians have made to the medical field:
http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/200 ... earch.html
Here are some highlights (to be fair to those arguing against universal health care, these come either from universities or after Canada's universal health care was instituted in 1966). Note also that the list stops at 2006 because the article is from 2007 - NOT because Canada hasn't made any advances since then.
http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/200 ... earch.html
Here are some highlights (to be fair to those arguing against universal health care, these come either from universities or after Canada's universal health care was instituted in 1966). Note also that the list stops at 2006 because the article is from 2007 - NOT because Canada hasn't made any advances since then.
- 1912 First surgical treatment of tuberculosis. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
- 1933 First excision of the entire lung performed (pneumonectomy). (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
- 1939 Invention of the corneal splitting knife (still standard in surgery to reduce pressure in glaucoma). (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
- 1950 First neuro-surgical treatment of epilepsy performed. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
- 1960 Implementation of genetic screening programs for hereditary metabolic diseases in newborns. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
- 1971 Developed the world’s first paediatric electric prosthetic arm. (Bloorview Kids Rehab – Toronto, Ontario)
- 1978 Developed the internationally-recognized AeroChamber, a medical device used to administer aerosolized medication for patients with asthma. This device continues to be used in practice around the world. (St. Joseph’s Healthcare – Hamilton, Ontario)
- 1979 Invention of a radically different ventilator (now used worldwide) that gently “shakes” oxygen into the lungs of children with severe lung disease, sparing many of them painful lung bypass procedures. (The Hospital for Sick Children — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1979 Development of “Continuous Passive Motion” (CPM), a revolutionary treatment for injured or diseased joints. Before this treatment, patients with damaged cartilage had to be totally immobilized. CPM is such an improvement that it is now being used in 17,500 hospitals in more than 77 countries worldwide. (The Hospital for Sick Children — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1981 World-first heart operation to correct a life-threatening heart condition known as right ventricular dysphasia. (Lawson Health Research Institute — London, Ontario)
- 1983 Successful single lung transplant. Lung transplants extend life expectancy and enhance the quality of life for end-stage pulmonary patients. (University Health Network — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1983 The Department of Nuclear Medicine becomes first to use a special imaging agent to diagnose Parkinson’s disease. Called [18] F6-fluorodopa PET, the chemical was produced by Hamilton Health Sciences and is now used worldwide. (Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario)
- 1986 Developed first predictive testing for late onset genetic diseases (Huntington Disease). (Provincial Health Services Authority – Vancouver, British Columbia)
- 1987 First aortic valve replacement in the world using the Toronto Heart Valve, which is now used worldwide. (University Health Network — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1987 World’s first pacemaker cardioverter defibrillator is implanted. (Lawson Health Research Institute — London, Ontario)
- 1988 World’s first successful liver/small bowel transplant is performed. (Lawson Health Research Institute — London, Ontario)
- 1989 Development of the first oral treatment for hepatitis B, resulting in the drug Lamivudine. (Capital Health/University of Alberta — Edmonton, Alberta)
- 1989 Discovery of the gene which, when defective, causes cystic fibrosis, the most fatal genetic disease of Canadian children today. (The Hospital for Sick Children — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1993 Researchers demonstrate that mouse embryonic stem cells are capable of supporting the entire embryonic development and in fact creating completely cell cultured derived mice. (Mount Sinai Hospital — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1994 World’s first three-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound-guided cryosurgery. (Lawson Health Research Institute – London, Ontario)
- 1994 Solved the 30-year old puzzle of why so many people suffer an allergic reaction when they receive a blood transfusion. (Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario)
- 1995 First physical map of the human genome created. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
- 1996 Identification of a human blood cell that regenerates the entire blood system. This discovery enabled the development of new treatments for blood diseases such as leukemia, thalassemia and sickle cell anemia. (Hospital for Sick Children — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1996 Identification of a gene that causes colon cancer. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among Canadians. (Hospital for Sick Children — Toronto, Ontario)
- 1999 First islet transplant under the Edmonton protocol for Type I diabetes. Islet transplantation had been performed under other protocols; however, the Edmonton protocol produced unprecedented levels of success in the field of islet transplantation. (Capital Health/University of Alberta — Edmonton, Alberta)
- 2000 Discovery of the mechanism of formation of amyloid, the basis of Alzheimer’s and other diseases, and the subsequent development of drugs to treat this. (Kingston General Hospital — Kingston, Ontario)
- 2002 Introduction of revolutionary medication doses for depression and schizophrenia through positron emission tomography (PET) technology. (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health — Toronto, Ontario)
- 2002 Creation of a simple system to generate T-cells in a Petri dish. T-cells are a vital component of the immune system that orchestrate, regulate and coordinate the overall immune response. This discovery provided a method to create model systems to study the genetics and molecular biology of T-cell development and points to future clinical therapies for people whose immune systems have been destroyed, for example, by HIV or toxic cancer therapies. (Sunnybrook & Women’s Research Institute — Toronto, Ontario)
- 2003 Researchers discover a way to make the immune system specifically recognize infectious prions, proteins that cause brain-wasting diseases like mad cow disease and Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, its human equivalent. This discovery paves the way for the development of diagnostic tools, immunotherapy and a vaccine. (Sunnybrook & Women’s Research Institute — Toronto, Ontario)
- 2003 Major international clinical trial provides first alternative treatment to taxol for preventing breast cancer recurrence in survivors five years post diagnosis. (University Health Network — Toronto, Ontario)
- 2003 Performed the world’s first hospital-to-hospital telerobotic assisted surgery on a patient more than 400 kilometres away. During the procedure, they completed a Nissen Fundoplication on a 66-year old patient located at North Bay General Hospital from St. Joseph’s telerobotics suite in Hamilton, Ontario. (St. Joseph’s Healthcare – Hamilton, Ontario).
- 2003 Developed a genetically modified vaccine that can completely prevent the recurrence of metastatic breast cancer through genetically altered cells that only destroy cancer cells. (Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario)
- 2003 Found that the vast majority of heart attacks can be predicted by nine easily measurable factors that are the same in virtually every region and ethnic group worldwide. (Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University – Hamilton, Ontario)
- 2004 World’s first use of beads of palladium, a low-dose radioactive material, to treat women with breast cancer on an outpatient basis. This therapy holds the promise of eliminating anguishing side effects and considerably enhancing the women’s quality of life. (Sunnybrook & Women’s Research Institute — Toronto, Ontario)
- 2005 Developed the world’s first upper respiratory viral panel test that can accurately identify all respiratory viruses including various flu strains including H5N1 and the SARS Coronavirus. (St. Joseph’s Healthcare – Hamilton, Ontario)
- 2005 Identified novel mutations in the gene that causes Rett Syndrome. The discovery is now licenced as a test for the disorder and is available to the public. (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health — Toronto, Ontario)
- 2005 Initiation of first human clinical gene therapy trials for lipoprotein lipase deficiency. (Provincial Health Services Authority/BC Children’s Hospital – Vancouver, British Columbia)
- 2006 First curative therapy for Huntington Disease in a mouse model (Provincial Health Services Authority/BC Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia)
McGill University is a center that recieves private funds. They have incentive to encourage people to produce research in the field of medicine. This improves their reputation, which improves the demand for their education, which in turn allows them to charge more to their students.
As to other areas, I am not sure as to whether they fully state owned and operated. Even government officials do have some incentive to produce research in the field of medicine, but it's my belief that the free market creates the conditions most suitable to progress in any field.
Yes it does not really matter that free market...or captitalism have been shown to be quite bad when it comes to making sure all citizens at least have access to basic medical treatment....sure if you go to an emergeny room they have to treat you but then they will bill you more money you can pay back....and besides why should someone have to wait till things get so bad they have to be taken to the ER? free market and captitalism does not seem to really address these things.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Aug 2011, 11:01 am
wcoltd wrote:
marshall wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
It wasn't my intention to waste your time or frustrate you. I was addressing the quote; "how so many people are so irrational as to actually believe against evidence that free-markets always tend towards an optimal benefit to cost ratio for the consumer"
That was what I was trying to address.
That was what I was trying to address.
Well my frustration is the videos you posted defend capitalism, yet I never attacked capitalism as a whole. Capitalism works great for efficiently producing things like cars, television sets, stereos, computers, etc... at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. My contention is that things like health insurance and prescription drugs are not operating on the same assumptions because the consumer is neither as informed nor does he/she have the same level of choice.
Why isn't the consumer as informed or have the same level of choice?
Because the insurance company might lose money if they are, or maybe they wont take the recommended drugs so the pharmacutical company might not make money off of them. Also usually people veiw their health as a little more important than a car, a box of pencils or any other 'consumer' product they have....this alone should be enough to convince people healthcare should not be treated as a simple consumer product........these are people and their lives we are discussing the capitialist model or whatever does not address that at all.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Aug 2011, 11:06 am
Inuyasha wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
marshall wrote:
wcoltd wrote:
It wasn't my intention to waste your time or frustrate you. I was addressing the quote; "how so many people are so irrational as to actually believe against evidence that free-markets always tend towards an optimal benefit to cost ratio for the consumer"
That was what I was trying to address.
That was what I was trying to address.
Well my frustration is the videos you posted defend capitalism, yet I never attacked capitalism as a whole. Capitalism works great for efficiently producing things like cars, television sets, stereos, computers, etc... at the lowest possible cost to the consumer. My contention is that things like health insurance and prescription drugs are not operating on the same assumptions because the consumer is neither as informed nor does he/she have the same level of choice.
Why isn't the consumer as informed or have the same level of choice?
Dude, have you ever paid for a medical procedure in your life?
I'll give you the major points:
1: For most minor procedures, the practitioner usually Does Not Know how much his hospital will charge you. Sometimes they know only a ballpark. Sometimes they have no clue at all. Nobody informs them, and they don't trouble themselves with it.
2: More people than just your practitioner will bill you. So even if your practitioner knows, he doesn't know.
3: Your insurance carrier may only allow you to have that procedure at one hospital in your area
4: Even if your insurance lets you "shop around", the practitioner at another hospital is no more likely to know, and will bill you just for asking the question.
Short of going to india or mexico to have your procedure done, comparison shopping for health care is not really anywhere near the same level as comparison shopping for a roll of paper towels.
I do know a guy who went to mexico for gastric bypass surgery. When i asked him if he was getting a band or just a staple job, he told me that the gastric bypass clinic in mexico stressed that they do "six row staples".
I told him that they should give him a free shirt that says "I went all the way to mexico and all i got was six row staples"
The free market hasn't been at work in our healthcare system for decades, what we currently have is crony capitalism where Government is picking winners and losers. Fact of the matter is Government run healthcare has no motive for innovation, no incentive of efficiency, etc.
If the free market was allowed to operate and insurance could be purchased across state lines, you would find that many of the shannigans that some insurance companies pull would cease, out of fear their competitors would have a field day bashing them in advertisements.
Umm you do realise its not The Government causing the problems in healthcare......sure they don't help but that is because they are enslaved to their pockets and who gives them money. Right now it seems as though corporate america runs healthcare.....and the only thing they have to answer to are their ridiculously high profits and it just so happens the more people who are screwed the more profit they get. The government is not picking winners and losers corporate america is and the government simply supports it because they get paid for it.
And I think free market and capitalism are very close to the same thing, capitalism is said to be a 'free market' economic system actually. Insurance companies are part of the problem, it would be better if we had a system that did not require them.
09 Aug 2011, 11:14 am
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
I find it ironic that so many people on a support site are basically arguing for social darwinism. American conservatism is inhumane, period. I don't even see the point of debating this. People won't have a change of heart until some bad s**t happens to THEM.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Aug 2011, 11:20 am
marshall wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
I find it ironic that so many people on a support site are basically arguing for social darwinism. American conservatism is inhumane, period. I don't even see the point of debating this. People won't have a change of heart until some bad sh** happens to THEM.
yeah that seems to be true......and honestly I find it sad that people honestly think charities make up for all these flaws in our healthcare system. I mean it honestly seems like people really do veiw healtcare as a privilege for those who can afford it....like a freaking nice car, its a luxary for people who can afford it. How can someone honestly argue that is how medical coverage should be treated?
09 Aug 2011, 1:12 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
To which state in the US are we comparing Canada to?
You might bear in mind that we are a federation, too--and health is a provincial jurisdiction. So if you are going to pick and choose subordinate jurisdictions as comparitors on your side of the border, you would have to do the same on this side of the border.
Given the mobility rights enjoyed by citizens and permanent residents in both Canada and in the United States, it makes sense to look at both federations in aggregate.
_________________
--James
10 Aug 2011, 1:02 am
marshall wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
I find it ironic that so many people on a support site are basically arguing for social darwinism. American conservatism is inhumane, period. I don't even see the point of debating this. People won't have a change of heart until some bad sh** happens to THEM.
I never said I supported insurance companies pulling shannigans on people... I said that if we had a free market system, the insurance companies would be afraid to pull those shannigans, because their competitors would have a field day in an ad campaign to steal their customers.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
10 Aug 2011, 1:07 am
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
I find it ironic that so many people on a support site are basically arguing for social darwinism. American conservatism is inhumane, period. I don't even see the point of debating this. People won't have a change of heart until some bad sh** happens to THEM.
I never said I supported insurance companies pulling shannigans on people... I said that if we had a free market system, the insurance companies would be afraid to pull those shannigans, because their competitors would have a field day in an ad campaign to steal their customers.
You just do not seem to get it....what is so great about insurance companies to begin with? and when it comes to healthcare its not really about competitors and customers its about people 'needing' health coverage and having to depend on profit driven insurance companies that can dictate what hospitals they can go to, what doctors they can vist ect.
Also I am still not seeing how capitalism and free market economy are not close to the same thing....free market would basically mean the government cannot intervene at all...which maybe sounds good on paper but it basically would just give these corporate monopolies even more power.
10 Aug 2011, 1:13 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
I find it ironic that so many people on a support site are basically arguing for social darwinism. American conservatism is inhumane, period. I don't even see the point of debating this. People won't have a change of heart until some bad sh** happens to THEM.
I never said I supported insurance companies pulling shannigans on people... I said that if we had a free market system, the insurance companies would be afraid to pull those shannigans, because their competitors would have a field day in an ad campaign to steal their customers.
You just do not seem to get it....what is so great about insurance companies to begin with? and when it comes to healthcare its not really about competitors and customers its about people 'needing' health coverage and having to depend on profit driven insurance companies that can dictate what hospitals they can go to, what doctors they can vist ect.
Also I am still not seeing how capitalism and free market economy are not close to the same thing....free market would basically mean the government cannot intervene at all...which maybe sounds good on paper but it basically would just give these corporate monopolies even more power.
I never said I trusted insurance companies, I'm saying I trust government even less than I trust the insurance companies. Yeah many insurance companies are made up of lieing weasels, that said the government makes the weasels in the insurance companies look like Mother Teresa.
10 Aug 2011, 1:18 am
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
10 Aug 2011, 1:20 am
mcg wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
Okay so I guess whenever someone invents something anyone can make off with it with no respect to the time and effort they put into inventing something...
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
10 Aug 2011, 1:23 am
Inuyasha wrote:
mcg wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
Okay so I guess whenever someone invents something anyone can make off with it with no respect to the time and effort they put into inventing something...
When it comes to healthcare the welfare of the 'patients' being treated should come first not the wallet of some rich person.....Obviously if someone invents something they should profit but healthcare simply cannot be viewed as a regular consumer product because it allows for lots of abuse and neglect.
10 Aug 2011, 1:25 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
mcg wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
Okay so I guess whenever someone invents something anyone can make off with it with no respect to the time and effort they put into inventing something...
When it comes to healthcare the welfare of the 'patients' being treated should come first not the wallet of some rich person.....Obviously if someone invents something they should profit but healthcare simply cannot be viewed as a regular consumer product because it allows for lots of abuse and neglect.
Okay then why would anyone devote any time to medical research, a lot of researchers would just say "screw it," we aren't going to bankrupt ourselves.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
10 Aug 2011, 1:26 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
I find it ironic that so many people on a support site are basically arguing for social darwinism. American conservatism is inhumane, period. I don't even see the point of debating this. People won't have a change of heart until some bad sh** happens to THEM.
I never said I supported insurance companies pulling shannigans on people... I said that if we had a free market system, the insurance companies would be afraid to pull those shannigans, because their competitors would have a field day in an ad campaign to steal their customers.
You just do not seem to get it....what is so great about insurance companies to begin with? and when it comes to healthcare its not really about competitors and customers its about people 'needing' health coverage and having to depend on profit driven insurance companies that can dictate what hospitals they can go to, what doctors they can vist ect.
Also I am still not seeing how capitalism and free market economy are not close to the same thing....free market would basically mean the government cannot intervene at all...which maybe sounds good on paper but it basically would just give these corporate monopolies even more power.
I never said I trusted insurance companies, I'm saying I trust government even less than I trust the insurance companies. Yeah many insurance companies are made up of lieing weasels, that said the government makes the weasels in the insurance companies look like Mother Teresa.
How can you trust insurance companies more than the government, I realise our current government is sh*t but the government is supposed to fill the role of you know making sure peoples rights are protected and things like that so ideally...I realise this is not something that will probably happen in my life time if at all......but ideally we would have a somewhat competent government, universal healthcare and no freaking insurance companies.
After all what role does an insurance company serve other than screwing people over.......there is no standard to hold an insurance company to but there are pleanty of standards one could hold a government to. Though I have to say current they are about equal as far as my trust goes which is a major issue.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
10 Aug 2011, 1:28 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
mcg wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
Okay so I guess whenever someone invents something anyone can make off with it with no respect to the time and effort they put into inventing something...
When it comes to healthcare the welfare of the 'patients' being treated should come first not the wallet of some rich person.....Obviously if someone invents something they should profit but healthcare simply cannot be viewed as a regular consumer product because it allows for lots of abuse and neglect.
Okay then why would anyone devote any time to medical research, a lot of researchers would just say "screw it," we aren't going to bankrupt ourselves.
Maybe because I am not a greedy pig who has to have a fat check waved in front of my face to be motivated to do anything useful...but what do you think should come first when it comes to medical care helping the patients or filling someones wallet?
10 Aug 2011, 1:35 am
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
number5 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
mcg wrote:
.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problems you mention all stem from the broken insurance model for healthcare, which the state encourages through the tax exemption of employer-provided healthcare. Third-party payment, for a significant part of the medical care that we consume, is stupid. It reduces consumer incentive to ration and look for a good price because they are mostly spending someone else's money. Of course we all end up paying for this through increased premiums, but still, an individual consumer of health care has a diminished incentive to save as he will be paying high premiums regardless. We shouldn't be paying people to insure against routine occurrences. That is financial insanity. Insurance should be for catastrophes.
The problem with insurance companies no longer paying for any preventive healthcare or minor procedures and having it all be out of pocket is that then people put off (or don't do at all) the preventative/minor things that prevent or lessen catastrophes. The catastrophe count goes up.
Also, what's routine for a healthy person is vastly different from what's routine for for someone with an underlying condition. An annual check-up for a healthy adult may be an absorbable cost, but routine care for a diabetic probably is not. What about someone who needs dialysis, or someone with a blood disorder? High blood pressure, arthritis, asthma, heart conditions, MS, MD, pregnancy, mental illness, and the list goes on.
Hundreds of conditions (possibly more) do not fall under the catastrophic category, but do require expensive, ongoing care.
I find it ironic that so many people on a support site are basically arguing for social darwinism. American conservatism is inhumane, period. I don't even see the point of debating this. People won't have a change of heart until some bad sh** happens to THEM.
I never said I supported insurance companies pulling shannigans on people... I said that if we had a free market system, the insurance companies would be afraid to pull those shannigans, because their competitors would have a field day in an ad campaign to steal their customers.
You just do not seem to get it....what is so great about insurance companies to begin with? and when it comes to healthcare its not really about competitors and customers its about people 'needing' health coverage and having to depend on profit driven insurance companies that can dictate what hospitals they can go to, what doctors they can vist ect.
Also I am still not seeing how capitalism and free market economy are not close to the same thing....free market would basically mean the government cannot intervene at all...which maybe sounds good on paper but it basically would just give these corporate monopolies even more power.
I never said I trusted insurance companies, I'm saying I trust government even less than I trust the insurance companies. Yeah many insurance companies are made up of lieing weasels, that said the government makes the weasels in the insurance companies look like Mother Teresa.
How can you trust insurance companies more than the government, I realise our current government is sh*t but the government is supposed to fill the role of you know making sure peoples rights are protected and things like that so ideally...I realise this is not something that will probably happen in my life time if at all......but ideally we would have a somewhat competent government, universal healthcare and no freaking insurance companies.
After all what role does an insurance company serve other than screwing people over.......there is no standard to hold an insurance company to but there are pleanty of standards one could hold a government to. Though I have to say current they are about equal as far as my trust goes which is a major issue.
I would trust insurance companies more in a free market system because of the fact they would all be competing with each other, they all are able to be held accountable for anything they do which is illegal. You have an insurance company dishonestly screwing people over, okay you tell your story to one of a couple hundred of said insurance company's competitors and they would have a field day plastering your story in a massive advertising campaign and quite likely that insurance company that hosed you, would be out of business.
The Government running everything would be a monopoly, it gives them power essentially over every aspect of your life, and get this people in government are human, due to our fallen nature, power corrupts, and the more power one gains the more apt they are to become corrupt.
