Interesting take by a liberal physician who now opposes Fed.gov medical care

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Medieval Man, Aug 27, 2019.

  1. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again, when you look at the statistics, wait times under national systems are comparable to ours.

    And I call BS on your doctor story, since Obamacare didn’t change much of anything for doctors. The biggest hassle most providers face is dealing with dozens of insurance companies and their varying paperwork and coverage requirements.

    My brother is a doctor, and Obamacare hasn’t impacted him much at all.
     
  2. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I wanted an MRI, I could have one this morning. Try that somewhere else.
     
    ProgressivePower likes this.
  3. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is this leftist ideology you claim exist? You can"t seem to figure out if they are liberals leftist or what specifically all you can do is try to place a political philosophy for a personal choice yet the two are mutually exclusive.
     
  4. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You could not have an MRI on the spot unless it was an emergency otherwise you will wait like everyone else does.
     
  5. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, MRIs are an interesting example. The U.S. does have more MRIs per capita than most countries.
    https://data.oecd.org/healtheqt/magnetic-resonance-imaging-mri-units.htm

    It's not dramatically more, but we have more per capita except for Germany, Switzerland and Japan.

    Part of the reason is that a lot of doctors have invested in MRIs. Meaning when they refer you to their MRI, they make money. Meaning unnecessary referrals. Meaning more money spent on health care. Despite no evidence that it makes us healthier.
    https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/01/23/scanning

    So you usually can get an MRI faster here. But it comes at a high cost. And most of the time, you don't NEED to get an MRI immediately. When you do, as you say, it's quick no matter where you are.

    Just an example of how our profit-driven health system leads to unnecessary procedures and unnecessarily high spending, for little or no benefit.
     
  6. AKS

    AKS Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    10,471
    Likes Received:
    4,755
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you type 3 with a straight face? LOL
    Salary is determined by market forces, not how much you are saving in another area.
     
  7. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Admittedly, more hope than anything. But it's already part of compensation, so at least in the short term it would make sense to convert at least some of it to raises. Otherwise your employees may feel like they took a pay cut.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
  8. Medieval Man

    Medieval Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,406
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, we don't see much of a general difference these days between liberals/progressives/socialists, as reflected by the Democratic Party's viable presidential candidates.

    And the leftist ideology I identify is that of statists who wish to use a weaponized Fed.gov against normal Americans in order to force their beliefs upon us...
     
    ProgressivePower likes this.
  9. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The Democratic party today, is now a social-democratic party. We see this now, with moderate candidates in the Democratic nomination, dropping out, or losing steam. It isn't a socialist party persay, the top social-democrats don't want literal socialism and government control of the economy, but they do want substantial government intervention in the economy, and an expensive welfare state, which all comes with high taxes and regulations. But here's the thing. If the social-democrats get what they want, M4A, GND, Free College, etc.. will they stop and say that's enough, or will they still go further? That is the ultimate question. They will certainly be pushed to go further by other leftists, and I don't think they will just stop if they achieve these goals.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
  10. Medieval Man

    Medieval Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,406
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your example of steak vs gruel shows you still don't get it.

    Government (at least not yet) doesn't collect taxes in order to spend money on a consumer's dinner choices.

    What government does spend taxpayer money on is defense, some infrastructure, staffing organizations that regulate our lives etc and in most of Europe, healthcare.

    If government has to spend more of its taxpayer money on defense, it will have to take that money from somewhere else. This, at least in western nations, will greatly impact a government's ability to continue to fund its other social programs, including health care.

    And without the ability to depend on the U.S. taxpayer for its defense needs, most of these governments would be forced to spend far more than they ever have on their military.

    How you can claim this wouldn't impact their ability to provide for healthcare is quite puzzling...
     
  11. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The problem with the U.S. healthcare system now is too much government intervention, too much litigation and too much regulatory capture by healthcare interests. The solution is not more government. Changing the healthcare paradigm as clinics around the country are doing now is a much better solution, as it returns more control to the individual consumer and the doctors. A few years ago there were very few Direct Primary Care clinics. Currently there are over 620 around the country with more doctors going to this model every day.

    There is currently a bill in Congress called the Primary Care Enhancement Act that will allow people with HSA (Health Savings Account) insurance to use it to pay for their DPC (Direct Primary Care) fees with their HSA. This model of care would allow you to have direct primary care at a very affordable monthly fee (usually between 60 and 100 dollars a month) that would cover more than 90 percent of normal healthcare needs and also give you the ability to handle the rare catastrophic events that aren't handled by your direct care clinic. My research indicates that I can join a DPC clinic for 90 dollars a month and buy an HSA based insurance plan for less than 300 dollars a month, making my complete monthly outlay less than 400 dollars a month. This compares very favorably to my current insurance through my employer that costs upwards of 900 dollars a month.

    This same kind of system could be made available for poor and indigent people with government funding of the same DPC/HSA system for individuals that qualify, just as happens now with medicare and medicaid. Doing this could incentivize those people to choose their care options wisely and frugally, as the HSA could be owned by them individually and any money left in the HSA account at the end of the year could be kept in the account, building a larger savings account to be made available to the person at a future time (retirement, chronic disability, etc.)

    Direct Primary Care coupled with an HSA would lower the cost of healthcare in the U.S. substantially as it requires the clinics to be transparent about their costs and services and it returns a measure of control to the consumer to choose his own treatment without interference from insurance companies or government.
     
    ProgressivePower likes this.
  12. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because they expect the promised nirvana, just like they believe the nirvana stories told about other counties and their wondrous health coverage.
     
    Medieval Man likes this.
  13. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is all true. It also has no relevance to national health care. Because national health care is CHEAPER than what we have, not more expensive.

    You don't seem to understand GDP, and you don't seem to understand that if a good is less expensive, it makes no sense to claim that it's only affordable due to savings elsewhere.

    So I'm done. When you demonstrate your ability to grasp those two concepts, we can resume our discussion.
     
  14. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    And M4A would end DPC. Exactly. We need to find the best market based system. As you correctly stated, the problem with the US healthcare system now is severe overregulation, but also underregulation in key areas. Universal healthcare, or govt control of HC, should be a last resort.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure those drawbacks are greater than the drawbacks associated with our healthcare-for-profit model.
     
  16. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The market delivers the best possible care, due to the profit motive, incentivizing innovation, quality, and keeping intact the supply and demand mechanism to make sure there aren't shortages, and care is delivered in a timely manner. This is why the US has the best overall quality of care in the world. It's due to markets. The problem with the US healthcare system, was never the quality, or wait times, it has always been the cost. Why would you want to take away what we do best in healthcare and turn it over to the government, which effectively eliminates all these fantastic positives that the market offers? The average wait time to see a GP/specialist in the UK is 19 weeks, in the US it's 3.5 weeks. Let me ask you this. If socialized medicine is so good, then why do people come here for care? Why don't the rich go to the NHS to get care, if they supposedly have better outcomes, and quality? Why is that? It's because overall we have better quality care here. Most of the medical research is done right here in the US. I agree that there is indeed some underregulation, and we can look to regulate ER care, but remember competition has always lowered prices for every commodity. The healthcare market in the US, is overall so regulated, due to corporatism, big HC companies ensuring monopolies and reducing competition, keeping prices high, and reducing innovation. Health insurance also cannot be bought across state lines, etc., etc. Like I always state, we should first look to create the best market based healthcare system we can. Where regulation is warranted it should be there, but where it isn't it should not, as it totally distorts the market, and keeps prices high.
     
    RodB and Medieval Man like this.
  17. Medieval Man

    Medieval Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,406
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My point was simple; if countries in Europe are forced to fund their own military defense, they will have much less money available to fund health care.

    Right now, they do not have to fund their defense due to the U.S. taxpayer doing so. If the U.S. defense umbrella is removed, they will have to find the resources to do so. And even a cursory view of their economy shows they will not be able to fund both healthcare and a competent military.

    It's really not complicated...
     
    ProgressivePower likes this.
  18. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Why do progressives want to determine what's good for people, when people can and should determine what's good for them? Progs act as though we the people are clueless, and don't know what we want and what's good for us. If people like their private insurance they should be able to keep it. And plenty of people like their private health insurance. Progs response to this is "Why?" "Like they suck, and universal healthcare is better, due to x,y,z." Do you lefties not see how you are anti-individual? This is a collectivist mindset.

    If people like their private health insurance, they should be able to keep it. Not removed against their will and replaced with a government plan, which will remove their private insurance, and totally reduce choice. The government is the sole monopoly. When the govt nationalizes an industry, you can forget about choice. If M4A is instituted and you don't like your govt healthcare, too bad. You can't opt out, and have virtually no other choices to get real care, due to government control.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
    Medieval Man likes this.
  19. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Our current model is terrible because of the regulation and the third party payment system. The free market where the customer pays (first party payer) and the service provider bills is much better. That means the customer knows what the price is and what service they're getting for that price and there is real competition for non-emergency services and also for emergency services if the consumer has any forethought as to price, location and services.
     
  20. Medieval Man

    Medieval Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,406
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I also question their motivation.

    It would be easy to say it is simply a power grab, a way to take control of a huge part of our economy. But I've met many well-intentioned liberals/progressives/socialists who feel government is the only answer.

    From my experience, this is often due to emotions and anecdotal evidence, where a compassionate person will learn of someone who fell through the cracks and feel they must make wholesale changes. And I guess they've learned that Fed.gov is the most effective way to make those changes, hence the quest for power...
     
    ProgressivePower likes this.
  21. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I just don't get the thrust to control and nationalize an industry, disregarding any critical analysis. They don't seem bothered by taking away from people what they like, and forcing them to pay for programs at the barrel of a gun. This is big stuff. Literally anti-freedom. I don't get how they don't seem to recognize that we should preserve markets as much as we can, because they have proven to create very optimal outcomes and living standards in every industry. For god sakes, we didn't have anything we do today 20 years ago, even 10. Capitalism is what has done this. Which is why we should strive to preserve markets as best as we can. First we should look at a market based healthcare, with some good government regulation, but less regulation then we have currently. If market based healthcare produces suboptimal outcomes, we can look at further government control, maybe even govt healthcare, but the inability for them to recognize all the freedom, consumerism, choice, etc. that will be lost is scary. I don't get why they don't want to at least try a good market based plan first, but want to turn to socialized medicine immediately. Every time something doesn't work, critical thinking and analysis goes out the window, and it's just more GOVT, more GOVT, socialize this, regulate that!
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2019
    Medieval Man likes this.
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is a nice recitation of free market talking points, much of which I agree with. However, I think that when it comes to healthcare for profit, we have chosen the wrong model. Having a third party, the insurance industry, control and define the relationship between physician and patient is foolishness. While in other fields the free market model is very good, that does not hold true in healthcare.

    What do you think of this article regarding iatrogenesis? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08...idemic-of-drug-and-vaccine-induced-disorders/
     
    ProgressivePower likes this.
  23. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It is possible that more state intervention in the healthcare will be needed, and maybe sometime down the future, we will have to go to 'universal healthcare', and maybe the healthcare market has flaws, I will concede this. But here's the thing. This market in the US, is nowhere near a functioning market currently. It just isn't, at all. Why would we go to something so big as to let the government take over healthcare, when we can first find out if the market at large can play a role, in a freer environment. I don't see why prices will not go down in a true free market healthcare industry. It's possible the third party payer system has flaws, but we could definitely try and incorporate a system where patients deal with providers directly without a middle man. Imo, we will see a loss innovation in this industry if we turn it over to the government over time, so as of right now I don't support government takeover of healthcare. I support a free market environment, or at the very least a freer one.
     
  24. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reasonable general principles. Allow me to point out a couple of things:

    1. The whole reason we began addressing health care as an issue in 2008 was because the free market wasn't working. Costs were spiraling, forcing employers to pay ever more for health insurance for their employees, crowding out other forms of compensation. The individual market was broken: there were a lot of policies that didn't really cover anything, you could be dropped from coverage on a pretext (often only AFTER you filed a claim), and basically only the young and healthy could get coverage. Something like 20% of the population had no health insurance at all, and for many people, a major illness meant bankruptcy -- but only after draining away any savings or other assets they may have had.

    2. Obamacare is a heavily market-oriented approach, and honestly, a reasonably hands-off one for the subject it's trying to tackle. Sure, it expanded Medicaid. But it left employer-provided insurance -- 90% of the market -- alone. It's fix for the individual market was to create competitive online marketplaces where people can buy PRIVATE insurance. The only thing it mandated there was some minimal coverage standards, to get rid of the junk policies that didn't actually cover anything. It also required insurers to pay out at least 80% of premiums in claims -- again, as a way to weed out junk policies. Oh, and it also stopped allowing insurers to drop people, or refuse to cover them, based on pre-existing conditions.

    Conservatives freaked out about the individual mandate, but the mandate is a necessary part of getting rid of pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate, people could just wait until they got sick to get insurance, which would have destroyed the insurance system.

    So do you recognize that the private system was broken? And do you recognize that Obamacare went out of its way to pursue market-oriented solutions, rather than government solutions?
     
  25. ProgressivePower

    ProgressivePower Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2015
    Messages:
    330
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Irrespective of, and prior to ObamaCare, which is nowhere near free-market system, the United States, healthcare system, was nowhere near a free market. I mean nowhere near so. If you want to learn more about the countless amount of regulations, monopolies in this industry, I suggest you watch this long video, if you're into this stuff.

     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2019

Share This Page