Universal health care peaking round the corner again

Sasha said:
Why stop there? How about women who get cervical cancer after refusing the HPV vaccine? How about ANYONE who gets cancer? We tell people what we think MAY be carcinogens, yet they continue to come in contact with them. How about people in big cities? They KNOW that all that air pollution is bad for their health and they choose to live there anyway. How about we exclude EMTs and Paramedics? They know that they may very well pick something up from their patients, but they continue to work anyway. After all, those are modifiable risk factors.
Click to expand...

NOW you're thinking like an insurance carrier!
 
daedalus said:
Im with rid/ryder. We already have a nanny state that takes care of irresponsible and reckless people. I will be for universal healthcare only if it is not offered to alcoholics and smokers and obese people(exception for the pathologically obese). They should have to pay a premium. These are modifiable risk factors that contribute to most of our healthcare spending. Yet medicare pays for there once a year ICU stays and they still go out and smoke and rape the taxpayers!!
Click to expand...

No the tax payer should not be paying for Smokers and Alcoholics health care... lol.... The manufacturers of these products should be covering their healthcare costs!

That being said...every person knows before they start to drink or smoke, the health risks involved, if they don't, they need to be made aware!
It's only in recent times that has been done, if you look back to the early 1900's.

Enjoynz
 
Veneficus said:
There is inefficent payment structures now.

The AMA also represents the old guard best interests. Truthfully if somebody told me my salary cap would be $180,000 a year (or 90K GBP, base) I wouldn't complain. (after my 5 year residency and 2-4 year fellowship in addition to my 10 academic years) But also consider that right out of school the pay at NHS is 32k GBP which is considerably more than the $42k average for a intern. The top pay to consultant physicians (aka attendings) is 173,638GBP.

At todays exchange rate that is $237,884.06 a year. Of course that doesn't include the fact of a 40 hour work week, considerably less in malpractice insurance and schooling doesn't cost nearly as much. What a tragedy it would be to only have to accept 1/4 of a million dollars a year working 40 hours. I will remember to cry a tear for the neurosurgeons tonight that can't bear the thought.

There are also location bounuses, like a 20% increase for working in central london vs. a 15% increase for working BFE.

I have no doubt that people benefiting from todays mess in medicine don't want it to go away.

The AMA also doesn't want hospitals accepting foreign school students to pay for clinical slots because it is only a matter of time before the American students will have to also. (which will put a bite in the pockets of medical universities, and divine entity forbid American students pay an equal share for something.)

But maybe some wealthy Americans can stop being greedy and do something for the good of all Americans?
Click to expand...

I bet you say a different story of a cap $180,000 after your ten year forfiet of working as a practicing physician until you finish your fellowship and 1/4 million dollar school loans. Then of course your $50,000 malpractice insurance. Now, with respect you will get reimbursed now with socialized at a very low reduced fixed costs. Yes, fixed no differential in pay structure alike the DRG's they have now.

Sasha said:
Why stop there? How about women who get cervical cancer after refusing the HPV vaccine? How about ANYONE who gets cancer? We tell people what we think MAY be carcinogens, yet they continue to come in contact with them. How about people in big cities? They KNOW that all that air pollution is bad for their health and they choose to live there anyway. How about we exclude EMTs and Paramedics? They know that they may very well pick something up from their patients, but they continue to work anyway. After all, those are modifiable risk factors.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is controlled risks and not controlled ones. There is allowable ones that one cannot choose for risk factors such as some medical conditions being heredity and inability to control them There are factors one chooses though. Bad habits and unhealthy life styles that the patient chose those risks.

R/r 911
 
anyone seen the program called "sick around the world"? u can watch the short video it highlights the fact that incomparison to places like china ,uk,germany that the us health care systems pales in comparison actually the US health system is ranked 37th in the world.maybe what the US needs to do is to research other countries healthcare system and take the good out of each and implement a system of universal health care that will work.what is also amazing is the fact that they spend less money on health care mind u there systems is not without fault as the program highlghts. click on the link below.or copy and paste it in your browser. go to the bottom of the page the click on watchonine

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

p.s forgive my "u"s lol
 
Ridryder911 said:
I bet you say a different story of a cap $180,000 after your ten year forfiet of working as a practicing physician until you finish your fellowship and 1/4 million dollar school loans. Then of course your $50,000 malpractice insurance. Now, with respect you will get reimbursed now with socialized at a very low reduced fixed costs. Yes, fixed no differential in pay structure alike the DRG's they have now.
Click to expand...

Actually, If I didn't have to pay my 1/4 million in school loans, I wouldn't really require that much. Not because I don't think I am worth it ;) But I guess I just don't require that much. Where do you draw the line between ambition and greed?
 
There is allowable ones that one cannot choose for risk factors such as some medical conditions being heredity and inability to control them There are factors one chooses though. Bad habits and unhealthy life styles that the patient chose those risks.
Click to expand...

And how are any of the things I listed hereditary? HPV is an STD which has been extensively linked to cervical cancer and there is a VACCINE for it. If women choose not to get the vaccine and contract HPV, should we deny them health insurance like we deny those who choose to drink or smoke? They made a concious choice to decline the vaccine and have unprotected sex (let's not get into semantics, now.).

Living in cities with polluted air is also not hereditary, no one can force you to live anywhere. If you make a choice to live in, say, NYC, can we deny coverage when they develop lung cancer? Can you prove something else caused the lung cancer? Can you prove that smoking did cause the lung cancer, and it was not some predisposition or other external or internal factors? Last time I checked you didn't have to be a smoker to get cancer, and you don't have to have cancer to be a smoker.

And people choose to enter the medical field, knowing full well there is a risk of exposure to TB, Hep C, PNA, HIV, C-Diff, MRSA, just to name a few lovlies. It's also a high stress enviorment. Stress makes you sick. Plus you're constantly exposed to the cold coughy sniffley ickies. Plus there's the exhaustion factored in, a lifestyle not convienent for healthy, well balanced meals. Should we deny health coverage to EMTs, Paramedics, Doctors, RNs, CNAs, even the clerical and house keeping staff in a hospital? They CHOSE to work there, no one forced them into it, it wasn't something inhereited. I mean... they could have possibly caused their own illnesses, why should we pay because they want to be in medicine?
 
Sasha said:
And how are any of the things I listed hereditary? HPV is an STD which has been extensively linked to cervical cancer and there is a VACCINE for it. If women choose not to get the vaccine and contract HPV, should we deny them health insurance like we deny those who choose to drink or smoke? They made a concious choice to decline the vaccine and have unprotected sex (let's not get into semantics, now.).

Living in cities with polluted air is also not hereditary, no one can force you to live anywhere. If you make a choice to live in, say, NYC, can we deny coverage when they develop lung cancer? Can you prove something else caused the lung cancer? Can you prove that smoking did cause the lung cancer, and it was not some predisposition or other external or internal factors? Last time I checked you didn't have to be a smoker to get cancer, and you don't have to have cancer to be a smoker.

And people choose to enter the medical field, knowing full well there is a risk of exposure to TB, Hep C, PNA, HIV, C-Diff, MRSA, just to name a few lovlies. It's also a high stress enviorment. Stress makes you sick. Plus you're constantly exposed to the cold coughy sniffley ickies. Plus there's the exhaustion factored in, a lifestyle not convienent for healthy, well balanced meals. Should we deny health coverage to EMTs, Paramedics, Doctors, RNs, CNAs, even the clerical and house keeping staff in a hospital? They CHOSE to work there, no one forced them into it, it wasn't something inhereited. I mean... they could have possibly caused their own illnesses, why should we pay because they want to be in medicine?
Click to expand...
Well, we have to draw a line somewhere. You cannot expect taxpayers to pay for your MI after you ate mcdonalds twice a day for your entire life, used the money you should have spent on your blood pressure pills on cigarettes instead, and refused to exercise.
 
daedalus said:
Well, we have to draw a line somewhere. You cannot expect taxpayers to pay for your MI after you ate mcdonalds twice a day for your entire life, used the money you should have spent on your blood pressure pills on cigarettes instead, and refused to exercise.
Click to expand...

That's ignorant. Can you prove, directly that they would have not had an MI if it had not been for the McDondalds? That their obesity caused their heart attack? Or that their cigarettes caused their hypertension and lung cancer? What if they bought both their HTN meds and cigarettes? What if lung cancer ran in their family? Do they get to go back under social healthcare?

Should we expect taxpayers to pay for an HIV patient's doctor visits? If they hadn't had unprotected sex or used clean needles, afterall...

Where do you draw the line on the discrimination? If we deny them coverage under social health care, do they get a tax break or are we going to force them to pay for benefits they can't use? How are you going to determine what transcends into too much alcohol or too fat? BMI index is pretty worthless when you take into consideration different body types. How are you to prove their obesity is a result of lack of excercise and fast food? What if they ate healthy and are still obese?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone doesn't contribute to social security, should they be allowed to withdraw from it when they retire?
 
To be (sick) or not to be (sick) that is the question Horatio

Should pts with mental illness, illegal immigrants, convicts like murderers and pedophiles, the soldiers wounded in that secret military raid that blew up "terrorists" but killed 50 children in the process all get universal free health cover +/- health insurance?

Should I be entitled to universal health care/insurance? Should you get it if you happen to be 25, don't get sick so no private cover, get pissed one night fall over and receive multi trauma injuries?

What do you do tomorrow when your kid is diagnosed with an illness/condition that will require $250,000 worth of treatment from a problem that runs in your family but skips every second generation?

I'm sure we can find many "classes" of people who "don't deserve" taxpayer funded health care or insurance cover. But what happens to you or your child when, perhaps even by accident you find yourself in one of those "classes" of the non-deserving?

Where do you draw the line and who decides on that line?

Exactly what do we expect from any "health care" system and why?


I dislocated my elbow playing soccer some years ago, was off work for four months, had MRI's, ambulance transport on the day with treatment, ED treatment and assessment, specialist consults at around $140 a throw, physio, drugs and splints and the like etc etc.

Even with the top private cover this would have cost me thousands out of pocket - Even on my wage I could not have afforded that. It cost me virtually nothing under universal coverage but more importantly, relieved me and my family of stress, ensured that I made a full recovery and could go back to being a taxpayer and permitted me to return to the lifestyle from which I derive meaning for my life.

Now I shouldn't be allowed to play soccer (again) at my age should I costing the taxpayers all that money? Mind you I'm not using anti-hypertensives, haven't had an infarct yet, my weight is good and the fresh air and exercise lowers my stress levels from ambo work.

I don't live a subsistence life in the bush just fending for myself and my family, killing wild boar, picking fruit and digging a whole in the ground to do a poo in.

My life is a little more complicated than that. And is certainly doesn't revolve around money though most of the health care debate seems to.

MM
 
Details for Ridders

Ridryder911 said:
Also, what credible source did those numbers come from? From what I remember, Trauma is the fourth leading cause of death; definitely not lack of insurance. R/r 911
Click to expand...

I found some links to references for the info I provided Ridders plus a few others that are relevant. (A number of the links site a report in the US Journal of the American Medical Association from 2000). Others are more recent. I'm trying to track down other info from the ABC report.

Cheers

MM

Links date range from 1999-2009

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/chiropractic_health_care/64085

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S1020-49892000000400020&script=sci_arttext

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/06/healthcare/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm

http://www.familiesusa.org/resource...008-press-releases/dying-for-coverage-wv.html

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/81895/death_by_lack_of_health_insurance/

http://www.familiesusa.org/resource...008-press-releases/dying-for-coverage-ca.html

http://southernstudies.org/2008/04/health-insurance-matter-of-life-and.html

http://www.peertrainer.com/LoungeCommunityThread.aspx?ForumID=1&ThreadID=87451

http://atypicaljoe.com/index.php/site/comments/health_insurance_in_america_dying_for_coverage/

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/medical-care-is-the-3rd-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us/
 
A couple more

A few more worth a look. The one from Illinois does a pretty good summing up on the way lack of health insurance affects peoples decison making in health matters.

MM

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0408-02.htm

http://www.illinoispirg.org/uploads...Dying-For-Coverage-Families-USA-new-study.pdf

- a good summary

http://www.apa.org/practice/paper/homepage.html
(I mentioned mental health sufferers and insurance)

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/United-States-Health-2003-4oct03.htm

overall analysis from 2003

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/103039.php

http://www.apru.org/awi/workshops/public_health2008/ppt/5-7 Nazem.pdf

(from Japan believe it or not)

Sorry getting a bit carried away - enough to read for a month.
 
Melbourne MICA said:
...the soldiers wounded in that secret military raid that blew up "terrorists" but killed 50 children in the process all get universal free health cover +/- health insurance?
Click to expand...

At first, Melbourne, I thought you were somewhat serious about opening a discussion on Universal Health Care, which you've devoted some extensive time on this subject in a previous thread. But, now you start a new post on this thread with an absolutely irrelevant opening paragraph that contained the above comment.

Just what are you really doing here? Opening some intelligent, thought provoking conversation about Universal Health Care? We all seemed to have been fooled by believing that was your intent, because it is clear you have an agenda and you just couldn't resist advancing it a notch here with your ludicrous and obtuse analogy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Melbourne MICA said:
I found some links to references for the info I provided Ridders plus a few others that are relevant. (A number of the links site a report in the US Journal of the American Medical Association from 2000). Others are more recent. I'm trying to track down other info from the ABC report.

Cheers

MM

Links date range from 1999-2009

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/chiropractic_health_care/64085

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S1020-49892000000400020&script=sci_arttext

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/06/healthcare/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm

http://www.familiesusa.org/resource...008-press-releases/dying-for-coverage-wv.html

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/81895/death_by_lack_of_health_insurance/

http://www.familiesusa.org/resource...008-press-releases/dying-for-coverage-ca.html

http://southernstudies.org/2008/04/health-insurance-matter-of-life-and.html

http://www.peertrainer.com/LoungeCommunityThread.aspx?ForumID=1&ThreadID=87451

http://atypicaljoe.com/index.php/site/comments/health_insurance_in_america_dying_for_coverage/

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/medical-care-is-the-3rd-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us/
Click to expand...



He said credible... .coms and .orgs are not credible. .govs and .edu tend to be much more credible as they don't have anything to gain from their reports.


And for the love of god, don't pass "thehealthyskeptic" off as credible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
do you think that the last administration put out anything credible on their .gov sites?
 
Veneficus said:
do you think that the last administration put out anything credible on their .gov sites?
Click to expand...



Prove otherwise, and I might be content at listening.

And for the love of God, if I see a single Wikipedia post labeled as "credible" I will slap a baby.
 
Linuss said:
Prove otherwise, and I might be content at listening.

And for the love of God, if I see a single Wikipedia post labeled as "credible" I will slap a baby.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is VERY credable.

One only has to watch HOW FAST something is corrected if somebody tries to deface it. Wikipedia also requires first sources for its articles and its collective editors will flag articles that do not quote legit sources.

There are very very few instances of blatantly false information on wikipedia.
 
daedalus said:
Wikipedia is VERY credable.

There are very very few instances of blatantly false information on wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Of course, as your signature states, this is your opinion. As for me, I find it reckless to assert that an on-line encyclopedia, one that can be edited by anyone anonymously, as VERY credible. Even when citations are requested, many times they are not and the entry remains intact.

I do however use Wikipedia as a guide, chiefly using the cited references to point me in a more reliable direction. I'm particularly careful on any resource article that may be subject to any political controversies. Better to steer away from those.
 
Linuss said:
Prove otherwise, and I might be content at listening.

And for the love of God, if I see a single Wikipedia post labeled as "credible" I will slap a baby.
Click to expand...

There was a study done by some pharmacists that appeared on medscape that showed wikipedia as being erroneous on medications up to 40% of the time. But as for .org not being credible:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/

http://content.nejm.org/

http://www.facs.org/

http://www.acep.org/

http://www.thelancet.com

http://www.medscape.com

http://www.estesonline.org/

http://www.surgeons.org

Perhaps you doubt the reputation of these sites? They are all .com and .org.

It will also be hard to find a lot of the .gov abstinence only BS now that the administration has changed, but there is plenty of news articles on the net it did exist. but I do submit this .gov with special attention to the quote:

"Under the Bush Administration, federal support for abstinence-only education has risen dramatically. This report finds that over two-thirds of abstinence-only education programs funded by the largest federal abstinence initiative are using criteria with multiple scientific and medical inaccuracies. These currucula contain misinformation about condoms, abortion, and basic scientific facts. They also blur religion and science and present gener stereotypes as fact."

You think this "largest federal support" didn't appear on a .gov website?

how about these government sites?

http://www.president.ir/eng/government/

http://english.gov.cn/

Would you like to revise your statement?
 
I am for Socialized Health Care. I believe that people are stupid and do not prioritize their needs properly. They will spend $300 on a haircut but not $300 on health insurance premiums. Thus, everyone should be taxed just a little bit more (and also the $50b a month from the Iraq invasion should be repurposes) and we develop a roboust and well funded socialized health system.

I am a very big fan of the Israeli system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Israel
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/M...ealth Care System in Israel- An Historical Pe
http://www.physiciansnews.com/spotlight/698dv.html

I also believe that the private insurance companies should be allowed to continue and supplement care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top