|
Quote:
While you may play it off as a joke, it's a serious issue in addition to the double treatments (which you convinently ignored). And as long as the lack of government oversight continues, it is a VERY tough thing to fix. Another major concern is the possibility of a hike in the demand on doctors. We don't have enough facilities to treat people as it is. Under the new proposals, our health care systems could start to resemble Canada in a big hurry (wait for days or weeks for treatment). Universal health coverage has its downfalls. RainMaker may be right on in his assessment. There will be less bankruptcy filings because no one lives long enough to be operated on. They'll just die in the meanwhile. |
Quote:
I don't disagree, I'm just saying the disparity is overblown and the argument ignores the many nuances of the situation. For instance, on the flipside many European countries offer more support for R&D and clinical trials than the U.S. government does. |
Quote:
U.S. health care has the highest rate of cancer remission in the world. There is a correlation. Now we just have to figure out how to be the best while not spending 30% more than any other country, or at least that's the ideal that people want to obtain. |
Quote:
Quote:
So your entire argument against health care reform is that there is an extremely small percentage of the population that goes into hospitals and tries to score prescription drugs? And since this already happens in our system, what are you trying to get at? It sounds like "since people try and score drugs from the hospital these days, we can't pass health care reform because people will try to score drugs from the hospital like they do now". Quote:
We get all of those shitty numbers and pay more than any country in the world for it. That's the bottom line. |
Quote:
So, like a lot of HMOs, right? Plus with the additional fun of fighting your insurance company to get them to pay. I lived in the UK for 5 years, and while the NHS has its problems, I'd take that system over ours in the U.S. any day. And I have excellent insurance. |
Quote:
We also have a life expectancy worse than just about every industrialized country in the world. |
Quote:
WE'LL ALL DIE IF WE HAVE UNIVERSAL COVERAGE!!! I don't believe prescription drug abusers play much of a role in healthcare costs. I can't find any numbers outside of total estimated cost of drug addiction. Do you have any proof that it's a serious issue? |
Quote:
Once again, you are using an opinion piece that covers one small issue to prove your point. You do not work in health care (from what I gather), nor do you have a real understanding of the costs of health care. You are patently wrong about your initial statement on public ERs, but what is difference really as we know you have no idea what you are talking about. You continually present your opinion as fact, with no statistical numbers to back it up. I'm assuming you read that tidbit about drug seekers on some conservative blog because, well it's easy to just blame spiraling costs of health care on drug seekers, but you minimize the fact that many lower-middle, and middle-class families are struggling to afford insurance and getting billed out the ass by the hospitals. I do not believe in socialized medicine, and I certainly do not believe lawmakers should decide what tests are necessary and what aren't. But right now, those decisions are made by the insurance companies instead of doctors. We need some health care cost reform and insurance reform, not more government control (see, I agree with you on something). But to assume there is no problem other than drug seekers and doom-and-gloomers is disingenuous and entirely refuted by statistical evidence (something you seem to abhor in many aspects). |
Quote:
I lived in Canada and had no problems with their system. Nor did I hear any horror stories with their system. The only major difference I noticed was the lobbies and offices weren't as dolled up as we get here in the States. Quote:
Canadians live longer than us. Try and back up your statements with facts. |
Quote:
Yes/No. |
Quote:
I heard Ted Kennedy's cancer is in remission. The Canadian Ted Kennedy is dead. You lose. |
Quote:
I'd argue that has far more to do with issues in our society than the abilities of our health care system. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have three family members who each head an ER. All three of them agree that 20-30% of the patients they see are drug-seekers. That's a very large chunk of time and money spent on people who don't need any help other than rehab. It's not like we're talking about Baltimore here. This is Kansas City. As I noted before, these are all publicly funded hospitals (i.e. they're in the rougher areas of the city). The hospitals in the suburban areas (often privately funded) don't have anywhere near the number of issues regarding drug seekers. |
Quote:
Doh! |
Quote:
Self-destructive activities was more what I had in mind. |
Quote:
I still don't get what you're trying to say here. Since it's already going on in mass numbers according to you, what does changing our system do to make this worse? Do people in the suburbs start going on drug binges all of a sudden because people who couldn't get insurance before can now get it? |
Quote:
Just a hunch not based on expertease but I'd think the price is other western countries would have to rise more than "a bit". Which would be great in a way, since its kind of annoying to hear those countries and many Americans be all snooty about their health care programs when our gross inefficiencies make their systems so much more affordable. I think it's a lot more complicated than just switching over to a European system. Reform is obviously needed, but we already have massive public health care here and it's a huge mess. I don't see how the solution can be even more government involvement. There's no way that doesn't simply lead to more waste and more inefficiencies. |
Quote:
My point is that there are massive amounts of wasteful spending in the current system. This is only one example. The focus should be on reducing waste in the system as it currently stands, which will allow more people at publicly-funded hospitals to get the care they need rather than it being wasted. It will also reduce costs. These facilities are supposed to be where people can get health care if they truly need in and don't have the funds. Instead, it's an endless drain on the health care budgets. Changing the system to be 'universal' won't do any good if we don't fix the core problems first. |
Quote:
Curious, how do conservatives feel health care can be handled? All I hear them say is that universal health care is not the answer. Are they arguing for the status quo? I'm not an expert on health care at all but I'd like to hear a conservative counterpoint besides saying that the status quo is just fine. |
Quote:
The problem you discuss seems more like a law enforcement issue than a health care issue. I don't see how you fix a core problem of people wanting drugs besides making them all legal. Somehow all these other countries have found a way to avoid this problem with their national health care systems. |
Quote:
Which is not anything close to what I said. The current situation is unworkable due to the gross amount of waste in the system. I'm saying that if the situation is handled properly, nailing down the waste should be the first priority. If you significantly reduce the inherent waste in the system, then a situation could very well be presented where Mr. Obama would have the wiggle room to properly implement a universal health care. IMO, he should focus on heavily reducing waste in his first term with the payoff being that he can implement a worthwhile universal health care system in his second term should he be re-elected. It's risky from a political standpoint for him, but it's the proper way to do it long-term. |
Quote:
*slaps himself on the foreheard* That's why I said conservatives, not Mizzou B-ball fan. Your quote was simply a framework for my question. As for waste, fine. You've brought up one example of junkies going into get prescriptions. Not sure how big of a waste that is in the grand scheme of things, but guess what the remedy is going to require? Treatment. That costs $$$ too. Can you expand on the waste idea? |
Quote:
Cutting off the drugs doesn't inherently require treatment. You're just cutting costs by not paying for something. If that person wants to waste their money on drugs, that's their own business. Just don't have the gov't pay for it. The government doesn't need to start bailing out drug users. I already offered another large waste, which is duplication of treatment. It's a major source of expenses for government-covered insurance (Medicare/Medicaid). They try to go on the cheap and then end up doing follow-ups that likely could and should have been done in the first place. Most doctors know they'll have to do the second test, but are required by the government to do the cheaper test first. It's a waste of time and money. There's a lot more paperwork that's required by government entities than by private organizations every time you have an appointment/treatment. That's extra dollars that the patient/gov't has to pay due to added office expense. My father-in-law is close to dropping his family practice because the amount of paperwork has become so burdensome on his practice and his workers. He needs a large staff just for the paperwork. This is a common feeling amongst many doctors. |
Quote:
There is a lot of beauracracy in the system right now but that is all the more reason we need reform. The government system isn't any worse than what we have with the insurance companies. That is beauracracy times 100. It works well in lots of countries. If you feel the U.S. is too inept and incapable of doing something like we see in Canada (or doing it better), than I understand your point of view. But I think this country is capable of much more. |
Quote:
It just seems like if the U.S. spends FAR more on health care per capita than any other nation, and doesn't cover very many people, it would seem the next step would be to cover the same amount of people for less money, or cover more people without spending more money. How can you go from where we are to universal health care? It seems like a pipe dream, a disaster waiting to happen. It's like if we were making plans to conquer the world, why focus on Australia when we can't even figure out how to take over Canada or Mexico yet? |
Quote:
While individuals certainly take personal responsibility for their debts, it is difficult to pay off your card on time regardless. We're credit card debt-free and find it frustrating to pay off our card electronically a day or so before the deadline and find that some charges didn't show up until the day it was due. Consequently we had to pay interest on stuff we didn't need to pay interest on. We lived without a credit card for a couple years until we got one just to boost our credit report. I like the bennys like extra points towards a hotel stay, but some of the practices need to be regulated. Believe me, I'm a fan of personal responsibility but in this particular case I think the deck is stacked against the public. |
dola, and another thing Obama related is that the gun control change is attached to the credit card bill...while not necessarily pork, it comes awful close.
|
Quote:
The best solution sometimes is to just tear down the house and build a new one. A good national health care system can be done and is being done in lots of countries. I just think sometimes you can only patch up the current system so much. A turd is ultimately a turd no matter how many times you polish it. |
Quote:
That's great in theory, but anyone who assumes that can be applied to health care in this country is simply not dealing with reality. |
Quote:
I saw that. Stuff like that drives me crazy. What the hell does gun control have to do with credit cards. Reminds me of when Republicans outlawed online poker monetary transfers in a port security bill. Ugh. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
If they're found not guilty, presumably they aren't a threat to national security. Plus, by saying "those who have violated American criminal laws" I think he's preserving a loophole that allows him to keep pretty-much-certain terrorists who, because of the way evidence was gathered and/or interrogations were done, wouldn't get convicted in regular courts.
On a related note, I love the outrage about people not wanting these guys to be incarcerated on American soil. A reporter on NPR the other night pointed out that the two most likely destinations, ADX Florence and the supermax military prison at Ft. Leavenworth, have never seen an escape. It's not like these guys are going to get turfed to Cook County Jail or something. |
Quote:
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent, or "not a threat to national security". Our system is designed with the understanding that criminals can't always be convicted. We accept that. It's not an appropriate forum for prisoners of war captured thousands of miles away. Our juries can't even understand DNA evidence. And I love the 2nd defense of this, "we can always just lock them up anyway". So what's the point of the criminal trials? They're clearly just a sham. I guess I can be in favor of a civilian trial where there's absolutely nothing at stake, if it wasn't for the expense and principal of raping our criminal justice system in that kind of way. I guess the idea is Obama can brag about successful criminal prosecution, but in actuality, have no risk. It's kind of slimy. Who knows what else he misleads us on. I could care less where they get locked up, as long as they're not giving civilian rights of citizens to terrorists. They're not citizens, and they are not civilians. Fortunately, this is one of those many areas will Obama will act in more practical terms than his rhetoric suggests he will. And his supporters won't mind, his opponents will be relieved, it's a no-lose for him. |
Quote:
If you pay electronically, isn't there a way to set it up so that it gets paid automatically right when it's due? There really should be. |
Quote:
Emphasis mine, and in response I'll say that I don't accept it. Personally, I've thought for a long time that jury trials have run their course and are now are generally a detriment to justice. So I guess that makes me a supporter of military tribunals in this instance. Since I have more confidence in the Obama Administration that they'll be fair than in the Bush Administration, I'm OK with that. |
Quote:
Tell us how you really feel. |
I hope that before the trial starts, the judge is at least candid:
"If you are found guilty, you will be sentenced and transferred to supermax prison. If you are found not guilty, you will be sentenced and transferred to supermax prison. Prosecution, please call your first witness." Just so the defendant knows exactly where he stands. If he refuses to participate in such a sham, he'd actually have a point. |
Quote:
I'm sure that will happen (military tribunals), and I definitely understand having more confidence in the Obama Administration as far as running those. That will also be the claimed position of the Obama supporters who are now in favor of civilian trials, once we get the military tribunals instead. It'll be, "Oh, it's OK, it's Obama". You have more credibility because you have this stance beforehand. |
What I suspect will happen, though, is that they'll turf whatever cases they can to civilian courts where they're quite sure the evidence they can actually use will result in a conviction. Where the usage of evidence is more problematic, they'll use the military tribunals.
It's important to note that, after an exceptional amount of pressure, the Bush Administration finally released almost all of the prisoners who were really innocent, so the guys we've got left are almost certainly guilty of something. So in reality this is more an exercise in sentencing than in determining guilt. Thus I'd expect the trials to be mostly concerned about making an assessment about which parts of the evidence can be trusted, and drawing conclusions based upon that. |
Quote:
I keep reading that over and over, every time it seems more bizarre. almost certainly guilty??? If you cannot produce enough evidence to show someone should be locked up, how can you know he should be locked up? What have we become? What have we done to our selves? How is this even remotely acceptable? |
Quote:
You can't prove anything to a 100% certainty. We don't even require 100% certainty in civilian criminal courts. Nobody would ever be convicted. Even those that confessed. If a domestic shoplifter, drunk driver, or murderer goes free in the U.S., its no big deal in the grand scheme of things. But terrorists? The bar should be FAR lower to keep them locked up. Not just because evidence is harder to obtain in a foreign country. |
|
What the government will pay to deliver drugs is just fucked. I drove 350 round trip miles the other day to deliver 2 syringes of percoset. Someone's insurance had to pay 200 bucks for that, cause it sure as hell wasn't the facility or the pharmacy. I'd assume the patient was on medicare cause they were most likely >75.
I'd say for the 7 of us to deliver 6 times per week(to roughly 25 destinations, give or take 5), it's probably damn close to 20K per month, just to the drivers. The company we contract out of may make at least 50% of that extra. Basically any kind of serious health care reform is likely to fuck my easy ass dream job, so I'm against any changes to the status quo. |
Quote:
I'm not sure. I'd have to ask my wife as she handles the bills. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Exactly. It's relatively sad that even some administration officials are ranting about no escapes when that has nothing to do with the legitimate concern that most people have. |
But the attacks angle is just as silly. We've housed terrorists, mob bosses and gang leaders and there are no modern examples of max and supermax prisons being targets of violent assaults. How exactly would a terrorist organization attack a supermax and towards what goal? If they have the capability to destroy a supermax prison wouldn't it be much more likely that they'd attack a high value, less defended target?
|
I think the real fear is having terrorists preach to other inmates and create new terrorists, not some physical outside attack.
|
Quote:
Right, seems like the wrong reason to realize this is a really bad idea. In any event, if they are found not guilty, they need to be released where they were picked up. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.