Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by rrlbees, Jan 9, 2017.
It's not weird to doctors and nurses. They will help anyone and they quite often do.
Why do we have police officers then?
Oh I know why. To protect the privleged from the under privileged. Boom.
- 10 for repeated spelling errors.
Have you considered the fact that rates are predicated on the cost of the care? And that the law did nothing to help clarify or control the cost of care? In my mind if we do have regulated rates for services or at minimum published rates we can actually control costs.
California and NYS population counts combined are a hair under 60,000,000.
60 million out of 323 million is 19%. 2 states is almost a 5th of the entire nation.
Yup. And we will have those published rates when we eventually go to Single Payer (aka "Medicare for Everyone").
Then there are no rates and none of this matters. If we go to a single payer system the positive of people having access to insurance will be outweighed by the myriad of negative economical consequences a single payer system would have.
Single payer works where I live. It's not perfect, and there are problems. But it's hardly the pluperfect hell the HMO's and their Republican puppets want you to believe.
Let's imagine we went full national health care. Do the hospital systems become government property or are the just paid by the government? How can top surgeons and doctors continue to be paid exorbitant salaries? Can the funding for innovation still exist? Will we still be a world leader in new and emergent medical technology?
I think if I had a written plan of how it would function then I can really dig into the idea. But the hurdles, in my opinion, seem too high to make that change. What about all of the people employed by the health insurance companies and the ancillary service/support companies. Shoot here in Charleston Benefitfocus is one of the largest employers. They are a employee benefit technology company that is publicly traded. What happens to all of those folks invested in companies like this?
As you can see I really just want more information.
Untrue. That's what Medicaid was for.
They should have had a buy in for Medicaid for people who were barely over the income threshold, between X income and up to Y income.
Both systems are a "work in progress," imho. To develop a better HC system takes time, perseverance, and some patience. There is no single, sweeping panacea to either one. I get tired of the "Oh, but that will never work!" types who shoot down every new development or plan with their impatient sneering (I don't mean you).
I still have not gotten an honest answer to the questions, "Why did the HMO's have hundreds of millions of dollars to pour into the battle against the ACA? And why did they fight so hard for so long?" And you can be certain there's no altruism in the answers. But then, they're really rhetorical questions, I guess.
Everything depends on how you define "full national health care." If you're talking about single payer, think of it as "Medicare for everyone." The hospitals would still be owned and run by whoever owns and runs them now. The super-paid surgeons and doctors are going to either take a pay cut based on what expanded Medicare + Medigap insurance pays or charge their far fewer patients far more because they refuse to take anyone who will use expanded Medicare + Medigap to pay them. Those who invest in drug companies for "instant riches" are going to take a hit in their portfolio because the drug companies will have to plow a lot more of their profits back into their operations than into dividends (the first nail in the coffin of the UChicago "the company is your piggybank" model?). Medical technology originating in many parts of the world is originating in countries with true socialized medicine (hospitals owned and doctors employed by the government like the hospitals and doctors in our military and Public Health Service) or single-payer systems. The system we have is one of the outliers.
And before you ask, yes, your taxes will go up because the government will have to take in more than the current 7% they get for Medicare. However, the market will drive health insurance costs down to a point at or very close to what Medigap insurance plans charge now. It will come very close to being a wash.
The answer to your question is simple, they were trying to protect profits so that their stock prices rise and investors are happy. The hundreds of millions spent on lobbying is less than the losses they have claimed from their plans offered on the exchange.
And if the HMOs are seemingly losing... then who is benefiting?
Instead of Canada, we need to focus more on those systems in Europe that work well - guaranteed government coverage for all, but also access to private systems for those who want it.
Medical professionals and drug companies.
As a former health policy analyst, this is a good post. Health policy is a bit like whack a mole in that you push down on something here and something else will pop up over there. Very complex but generally I think a public option and the Feds being able to negotiate drug prices (criminal Congress prohibited) would go a long way to a better imperfect system.
Or, you'll just have fewer people go into medicine.
I have difficulty believing the founders intended to build a place in which professional classes (doctors, lawyers, accountants) became obscenely wealthy in the backs of the sick and injured. The argument can be made that health care insurance has done for health care costs what student loans have done for education costs.
What is "obscenely wealthy" to you, and what doctors do you know classify as that?
Cause I know I'm not.
Yeah, doctors make good bank (and obviously it's all over the place depending on your specialty), but there aren't too many that I would describe as 'obscenely wealthy.'
That wasn't a shot at you personally, nor my cousin who's an orthopedic surgeon, but this guy, with a net worth of over $10 million, who is now joining the other piggies at the trough, is not the only one like him.
Dr. Ben Carson Net Worth 2015: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
The majority of Carson's wealth is derived from income not directly related to the practice of medicine (ie, book sales, fees / stocks related to boards he sits on)
Yeah Ben Carson is like at the top of the food chain wrt neurosurgeons. He's definitely an outlier.
As a doctor, I'd love your take on how to pay for health care. Doctors who I know and in articles that I've read all complain about the crushing amount of paperwork involved with being a doctor and it seems like the ACA has only made it worse. What would you think of a single payer system where doctors are paid a salary rather than per procedure. It seem like this model could reduce unnecessary treatments and simplify paperwork for doctors. Doctors would be evaluated by their employer, and high performing doctors would get paid more. This system would raise taxes and create government bureaucracy so conservatives would hate it. It also could reduce economic incentives for pioneering doctors, which would be bad.
**I don't have a political stance on health care and really just want something better than what we currently have.
Separate names with a comma.