RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care

RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 5:32:09 PM)
Fact is, I'm not dead, even though I didn't use any health care. If "lack of health care" causes death, then I should be dead. Yet you have claimed that you have had health care "While I was in college, I went to the doctor less than 20 times in those 4 years." How much health care does one need to not die? Is this an intentionally stupid question? It would seem obvious that sufficient medical care, either preventive or curative, could prevent one from dying from curable causes. How this simple fact could have eluded anyone is a mystery to me. If it's lack of health care that causes death, then there has to be some amount that will prevent death. More of the stupid questions. Why? In the absence of disease, lack of health care will not result in death. Do we arrive at a state of "absence of disease" by accident or by preventive medicine? In the presence of disease, having health care will only extend your life (if effective). That's it. Oh my fucking gawd do you mean that no matter what we are all going to die...A firmer grasp of the obvious has seldom been noticed by this observer[8\|] Lack of health care only means it isn't there to extend your life (by reducing the disease's ability to kill you). That's it.expressed. Yet again a firm grasp of the obvious is posted. What is your fucking point. Yes we all fucking die eventually. Medical care can only prolong the enevitable. None of this is at question. So I ask once again what is your fucking point?

Tkman117 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 6:01:25 PM)
Greed my friend, the point is greed. It's the only true reason behind anything the Conservatives ever do, you just need to dig deep enough to really see it.

thompsonx -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 6:15:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Greed my friend, the point is greed. It's the only true reason behind anything the Conservatives ever do, you just need to dig deep enough to really see it. True on the whole but not the whole truth. The whole truth is that there is no difference betwixt the to contending sides...all that seperates them is rhetoric.

graceadieu -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 6:48:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Insurance lessens the cost to the individual, but not to the aggregate. The cost of individual procedures and services will not, generally, be effected. The only way to reduce health care spending, then, would be to reduce the number of procedures/services, or reduce the number of high cost procedures/services. So much for the Affordable Care Act, eh? I think this is an important issue. One of the things that having health insurance (or single-payer, or whatever) does is that it allows people to get moew preventative care, so they need fewer high-cost procedures down the line. If you doctor can catch your high cholesterol at age 30 using a test that costs $100, he can give you some pills and get you to change your diet, and you won't need a $100,000 heart surgery when you're older. Switching to a "preventative" model from a "curative" model will do the same thing, without any other changes. I do believe you are overestimating the amount of preventative care that will be sought more than now. Americans, generally, need to change their habits and lifestyles so preventable problems are prevented. Lifestyle is extremely important, and those who don't know that are probably not likely to heed the care providers admonitions anyway. While I don't know that getting health insurance will make many people quit smoking or go on a diet, I honestly do think it'll at least get more people going to the doctor now and then, getting vaccines, and being able to buy things like insulin or heart medicine that they couldn't afford before that will help them manage their health problems. There are unfortunately a decent number of people right now that have diabetes or heart problems or whatever and can't afford the treatment (or even diagnosis) and so do without, and just go to the ER when it turns into an emergency. quote: quote: But there is another way to reduce health costs, that is very effective. Which is for large organizations - such as the federal government - to negotiate with providers to drive down costs. It doesn't really cost thousands of dollars to do an MRI. You can do an MRI for $100. It doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to make 30 pills of heart medicine - they could sell it for $50 and still make a profit. Unfortunately, one of the flaws of the ACA is that it doesn't really do this. This is one of the things, IIRC, that got dropped in the negotiations with Republicans. If they came around and pushed for this, we could save lots of money on health care. Medicare and Medicaid already negotiate reimbursement rates. Why do we pass a "Doc Fix" bill every time it comes up? Beats me. Medical lobby is too strong? I'm not so much talking about paying doctors, though, as I am about drugs and equipment. Doctors should make a decent wage, especially in this country where we don't help them pay for med school. The Feds should be negotiating with Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKleine, not your local family practice.

seekingOwnertoo -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 7:24:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: seekingOwnertoo quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I was at one time a senior developer at a smallish software company and our high health care costs was slowly pushing out of the international market and we could see the day coming where international firms would be able to underbid us on US jobs simply by only having sales personnel in the US and keeping their development staff in Canada or Europe. Yes, and I do understand this ... its a huge problem for American "competitiveness" ... one that people in Washington today will not even accept as true. Yet it is ... When a company no longer has to pay the HIGHEST HEALTH CARE COSTS IN THE WORLD ... well, it sure can be a LOT more competitive. No? [;)] http://www.collarchat.com/m_4552598/tm.htm Read thru the thread you linked in, and the article you attached ... seems you see the same problem DomKen and I do ... thanks for your insight!

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:23:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, that people actually believe that lack of health care causes death is what is absurd. This comment is about the stupidest thing I have heard here in days. Are you really suggesting preventetive midicens works, but lack of it doesnt cause death. Repeating yourself over and over just makes you look silly. Read the link, from an unbiased source........Harvard Medical School. http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917 It clearly states one person dies every twelve minutes from the US due to lack of health care. That is a political analysis if ever there was one. Why do we need health care? To cure us from disease. Preventive care might detect disease states, but, that's only if there is a disease state. If there is no disease present, what does preventive care do? I'll give you "peace of mind." That's about it. If there is no disease state, what does the lack of health care get you? Nothing. I would agree that health care might have prevented a person's death every 12 minutes, but, that, again, is not the same. The killing is the disease. The health care is the restoring from the disease state.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 From what I understand he's nitpicking at the details that something aside from healthcare does the killing, and that not having health care doesn't make the health care kill you. Either way it's a moronic argument to make. Yes, you die from something, but if the potential to be saved by health care exists and you lack the ability to have it, then ya, the lack of healthcare in tandem with whatever ailment you have originally will kill you. What he doesn't get is how health care is a life changer, that having it can save your life and on the flip side kill you if you don't have it. Sorry, but the correlation does not prove causation. quote: To DS, LACKING HEALTH CARE WILL ONLY KILL YOU IF YOU HAVE A TERMINAL ILLNESS, CONDITION, OR INJURY. WE ARE NOT SAYING BASIC HEALTH CARE WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE IN THE IMMEDIATE PRESENT, BUT IT DOES HELP PEOPLE LIVE MORE CONFORTABLE LIVES AND EVEN IN THE LONG RUN PROLONG THEIR LIVES. Thank you for admitting that lack of health care does not actually kill you. At no point in time did I ever claim that health care doesn't help you live longer. That, actually, was what I said. You claim you have the right to live as long as you want. I disagree that's a right. I do believe you have the right to live as long as you naturally can. If you want to live longer, take the necessary actions to prolong your life.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:32:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 DesideriScuri... I know active people that got cancer or had to ricover from strokes that luckly didn't killed them, there are congenital medical conditions, and most of the people just get old, I don't know if you plan to sucide at a certain age to not be a weight for society but otherwise you'll need more assistance, I just don't agree with this "living the moment and not caring for the future" phylosophy. I get you don't want to pay more for smokers and overweights but you are actually paying even more to not have them "steal" your health care. Second thing if you buy procedures in a free market the price is set by the market, if you think about moderating the prices by law you'll just have less health care facilities because many operators will invest the money in something different. I am not paying more because others are "stealing" my health care dollars. That's not the problem. The problem is that the cost of procedures and services is too high. And, your second point reads as though you are agreeing that government mandated price controls won't work without causing market failures via lack of providers.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, that people actually believe that lack of health care causes death is what is absurd. you have a brain ds, that much is obvious but I can not believe how wilfully obtuse you are being. Looking at your pic you clearly want to look like a big strong self sufficient guy, you can look after yourself etc etc but I suggest you calm down a bit and try to look at the bigger picture. Oh shit, ds, you've just lost your job. Fuck, I feel for you man, times are tough and you can't get another job. What's that? you've got some back pain? I've been there, hurts like hell doesn't it? Even less chance of getting another job now so you have to start using up your savings just to live. Oh no, seems like the back pain was just a symptom of something more serious, what happens next? Fuck all, your just another unlucky person who gets left by the wayside because you are suddenly of no use to the capitalistic American machine. Hope you don't feel that twinge because I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone. But it does doesn't it? You don't know the story behind my avatar, so I'm just going to say, "not correct at all." I know shit happens. This is also why I believe charity is absolutely necessary. And, guess what. It is necessary and it is there.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:41:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The only way to lower costs in the US - at this time - is by getting rid of the excess costs within the system that makes a procedure high. What exactly are those "excess costs"? Let's see, there's excess administrative costs. There's excess cost in inflated salaries for medical professionals who can only be licensed by a government-authorized monopoly. There's excess costs when insurance companies own care providers. There's excess cost because the cost of malpractice insurance is so much. Need I go on? quote: There is going to be a fight in the US over health care and the Constitution. What the fuck would you know about the mother fucking constitution? You can't even name the enumerated powers you claim to believe in. More than you'll ever acknowledge. quote: Don't simply listen to me No one does Once it's all worked out, the US will outspend every other country for health care, We do now. That is why we are now having a discussion about socialised medicine or for profit health care. Great job reading for comprehension!! So, the "once it's all worked out" referenced the Constitutional challenges that will happen. And, after those thing are worked out (regardless of verdicts), we'll outspend every other country for health care. That means, we'll outspend every other country for health care regardless of the style of health care we have, including a system like the NHS.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:42:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Fact is, I'm not dead, even though I didn't use any health care. If "lack of health care" causes death, then I should be dead. Yet you have claimed that you have had health care "While I was in college, I went to the doctor less than 20 times in those 4 years." How much health care does one need to not die? Is this an intentionally stupid question? It would seem obvious that sufficient medical care, either preventive or curative, could prevent one from dying from curable causes. How this simple fact could have eluded anyone is a mystery to me. If it's lack of health care that causes death, then there has to be some amount that will prevent death. More of the stupid questions. Why? In the absence of disease, lack of health care will not result in death. Do we arrive at a state of "absence of disease" by accident or by preventive medicine? In the presence of disease, having health care will only extend your life (if effective). That's it. Oh my fucking gawd do you mean that no matter what we are all going to die...A firmer grasp of the obvious has seldom been noticed by this observer[8\|] Lack of health care only means it isn't there to extend your life (by reducing the disease's ability to kill you). That's it.expressed. Yet again a firm grasp of the obvious is posted. What is your fucking point. Yes we all fucking die eventually. Medical care can only prolong the enevitable. None of this is at question. So I ask once again what is your fucking point? You are intentionally ignoring the point. Lack of health care does not kill you. Period.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 Greed my friend, the point is greed. It's the only true reason behind anything the Conservatives ever do, you just need to dig deep enough to really see it. Seriously? Only Conservatives are greedy? [sm=LMAO.gif]

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 8:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Insurance lessens the cost to the individual, but not to the aggregate. The cost of individual procedures and services will not, generally, be effected. The only way to reduce health care spending, then, would be to reduce the number of procedures/services, or reduce the number of high cost procedures/services. So much for the Affordable Care Act, eh? I think this is an important issue. One of the things that having health insurance (or single-payer, or whatever) does is that it allows people to get moew preventative care, so they need fewer high-cost procedures down the line. If you doctor can catch your high cholesterol at age 30 using a test that costs $100, he can give you some pills and get you to change your diet, and you won't need a $100,000 heart surgery when you're older. Switching to a "preventative" model from a "curative" model will do the same thing, without any other changes. I do believe you are overestimating the amount of preventative care that will be sought more than now. Americans, generally, need to change their habits and lifestyles so preventable problems are prevented. Lifestyle is extremely important, and those who don't know that are probably not likely to heed the care providers admonitions anyway. While I don't know that getting health insurance will make many people quit smoking or go on a diet, I honestly do think it'll at least get more people going to the doctor now and then, getting vaccines, and being able to buy things like insulin or heart medicine that they couldn't afford before that will help them manage their health problems. There are unfortunately a decent number of people right now that have diabetes or heart problems or whatever and can't afford the treatment (or even diagnosis) and so do without, and just go to the ER when it turns into an emergency. No one denies that there will be more people who will have insurance for those things. But, that is simply shifting the cost of insurance from those who make less to those who make more. That's it. It isn't making it "affordable" for everyone. It's making it affordable to some and more costly to others. quote: quote: quote: But there is another way to reduce health costs, that is very effective. Which is for large organizations - such as the federal government - to negotiate with providers to drive down costs. It doesn't really cost thousands of dollars to do an MRI. You can do an MRI for $100. It doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to make 30 pills of heart medicine - they could sell it for $50 and still make a profit. Unfortunately, one of the flaws of the ACA is that it doesn't really do this. This is one of the things, IIRC, that got dropped in the negotiations with Republicans. If they came around and pushed for this, we could save lots of money on health care. Medicare and Medicaid already negotiate reimbursement rates. Why do we pass a "Doc Fix" bill every time it comes up? Beats me. Medical lobby is too strong? I'm not so much talking about paying doctors, though, as I am about drugs and equipment. Doctors should make a decent wage, especially in this country where we don't help them pay for med school. The Feds should be negotiating with Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKleine, not your local family practice. OMG, "durable medical equipment" costs are ridiculous. A pair of "diabetic socks" (the socks that put pressure on your lower legs to prevent pooling of blood; help treat lower leg edema; etc.) is $17-20 for the generic knock offs! And, DME got a nice little tax hike, too! Yay us! Doctors oppose the slashing the reimbursements for Medicare because it will hurt their business and they won't be able to see new Medicare patients and might have to cut loose their current ones. Doctors won't have the time to spend enough quality time with their Medicare patients because they have see more patients to stay afloat. That's why Congress continually passes Doc Fix bills.

Lucylastic -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 9:26:14 PM)
Hmmmmm My hubby has been unwell for a while DS< hes getting up there in years, he is retired(he is 67.) Hes been active all his life, altho he drank alcohol until he was 45 and smoked two packs a day, until six years ago when he quit cold turkey. Yes he abused his body, and he is paying for it.. He has been 155-165 lb all our married life, he was diagnosed with diabetes a few years ago, its managed thru diet alone and he has high bloody pressure, which he takes medication for. He had to be diagnosed and tested to find out what was wrong with him. In the last year, he has had swelling in one leg, enormous pain in his legs when he walks, and in the last month or so, getting "puffed" walking the dog. I sent him to the doc, who gave him a battery of tests, including to his chagrin a prostate exam, MRI of his chest, cat scan, eeg ecg, chest xrays skull xrays, an ultrasounds and this week he had an arterial doppler and carotid doppler done. Is it preventative, yes, is it diagnosing " disease"?? maybe, we havent got the results in yet, is it possible he will have to have surgery , yes. IF they find something wrong they will attempt to fix it, or help it. If he needs to do more to change his "lifestyle, he will do it. Now... I know that on our monthly income, had we been living in the US, he wouldnt have gone to the docs, a he is a stubborn man and hates doctors, b, we have a lot on our plate right now financially, and insurance would have been unavailable to us simply because of cost. He wouldnt have gone to the doctors and we certainly would not have been able to afford the costs of the testing, specialists and doctors fees, he would have suffered thru it(stiff uppper lip dontcha know) until possibly dropping dead of heart disease, an aneurysm, or a stroke. Yes he could still do that(I wont let him go that easily dammit, ) but having the healthcare that we have here with tax money, ensures that he will get the diagnostics when he needs it, not when he suddenly finds himself in the ER because he had a heart attack at the wheel of a car, or fallen downstairs because he passed out and broke a leg, and find out his"disease" has progressed to the point that he is shit outa luck and has a week or so to live. Thank you very much, I want him to live ionto his nineties the cantankerous old bugger, Im SO happy to have Canadian and the NHS care in my life... its not just "disease" and accident, than can kill us, not getting these things diagnosed and tested for in time, or having the money to access such, can make things far worse to deal with. SO Im calling piffle on your claims. Yes this is an emotional post but dammit, He is mine and I wont lose him to greed and ignorance.

NoBimbosAllowed -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 9:51:12 PM)
so just to be clear, Desideri, if someone dies because they can't afford privatized "kaiser permanente' style medical treatment, that's okay with you, but if they are going blind, crippled and mute from Multiple Sclerosis so they CAN'T work to get the private-pay care, you WON'T say they have the right to end their own suffering, right? That would appear to spit in the gaping-asshole felchgoating of Manifest Destiny Bullshit.

tweakabelle -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/8/2013 11:31:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It clearly states one person dies every twelve minutes from the US due to lack of health care. It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the bottom. This kind of logic, or the similarly inane argument advanced by DS makes for fun semantic games for people who take pleasure in being obtuse. The rest of us just yawn and shake our heads sadly at the stupidity involved. Basing public healthcare policy on a foundation as flimsy and tenuous as this makes for a lot of dead people over time, as the c50,000 Americans who die annually from lack of healthcare will attest. The goal of healthcare is to prevent unnecessary death and suffering, not contribute to or increase deaths and suffering.

eulero83 -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 12:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem is that the cost of procedures and services is too high. If you are not suggesting there is a cartel between health operators in the USA this sentence is pretty socialist for your information. quote: And, your second point reads as though you are agreeing that government mandated price controls won't work without causing market failures via lack of providers. Yes I agree with that, belive me or not I'm right winged (that in my country doesn't mean repubblican), but your talking of excess costs means you don't completely agree with this as the correct free market answer to "your prices are too high" is "mind your fucking business I can manage mine", what I'm saying is what's been described in terms of insurance prices and public spending in the USA shows that due to health's nature as basic need purchasing this kind of services mainly or solely from private providers is depressing the economy as you are paying more taxes for inadequate or no services.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 4:24:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 It clearly states one person dies every twelve minutes from the US due to lack of health care. It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the bottom. This kind of logic, or the similarly inane argument advanced by DS makes for fun semantic games for people who take pleasure in being obtuse. The rest of us just yawn and shake our heads sadly at the stupidity involved. Basing public healthcare policy on a foundation as flimsy and tenuous as this makes for a lot of dead people over time, as the c50,000 Americans who die annually from lack of healthcare will attest. The goal of healthcare is to prevent unnecessary death and suffering, not contribute to or increase deaths and suffering. I'm not being obtuse, nor am I playing a game. People argue that health care is a right. Why is it a right? "Because lack of health care causes death and people have the right to life." [paraphrased] Um, no. Lack of health care does not cause death. Health care can only extend life by countering the effects of disease. Basing public health care policy on moral grounds is is ridiculous. You can't legislate morality. Government isn't about morality or emotional stuff. It's all about the legalities. Government is about securing the rights of the governed. Health care is a necessity, but it is not a right. Having health insurance is good, but it is not a right. Having our health care costs low is a damn good thing, but, again, it is not a right. People blame greed for the ills of the world. I tend to agree, but don't point at the same greed. Greed is also what makes the world go 'round, and it has since recorded history. The unholy alliance between care providers and insurance is an amazing inflation to the cost of health care. Raising cost of care makes it less and less likely a person is going to be able to afford care without insurance. As cost of care rises, so does the cost of insurance. You can shop insurance packages all you want, but when the insurance companies are also the ones determining the cost of the care, you're fucked. I am not playing a game. I am not relying on semantics.

Lucylastic -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 4:28:50 AM)
shake my head sadly

DesideriScuri -> RE: A question for Canadians, Brits and any other citizen of a country with nationalize health care (10/9/2013 5:39:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The problem is that the cost of procedures and services is too high. If you are not suggesting there is a cartel between health operators in the USA this sentence is pretty socialist for your information. Health care providers and insurance companies are wed, usually under the same company. There is a fight in the Toledo, Ohio area (my locale) between Promedica and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). ProMedica bought St. Luke's Hospital in Maumee (suburb of Toledo). St. Luke's Hospital was the only hospital in the area that wasn't part of ProMedica or Mercy Health Partners. The FTC suit is to prevent the merger on the basis of maintaining competition for health care provision. St. Luke's contention is that without joining in with ProMedica, the hospital won't be able to financially stay in business. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20130305/NEWS/303059947 ProMedic Hospitals in the area: Bay Park Hospital Flower Hospital Toledo Hospital (also has a Children's Hospital) St. Luke's Hospital (pending outcome of the FTC case) Mercy Hospitals in the area: St. Anne St. Charles St. Vincent (also has a Children's Hospital) Hospitals not affiliated with Mercy or Promedica in the area: University of Toledo Medical College (UTMC, formerly Medical College of Ohio [MCO]) UTMC also has a partnership with ProMedica 8 hospitals in the Toledo area 5 hospitals actually in Toledo 3 hospitals in suburbs These 8 hospitals are all in Lucas County, Ohio, which has approximately 438,000 residents (patients do come from other Counties, too). There is little competition, and when the ambulance comes to get you, unless the closest hospital doesn't provide the care you need (ie. St. Luke's Hospital has a maternity ward, but doesn't have the neonatal intensive care (NICU) facilities; for the birth of my twins, we had to go to St. V's for their NICU [St. V's because that was where our neonatologis practiced; Flower Hospital and Toledo Hospital also have NICU's]). Just some additional info, my oldest was born at St. Luke's. While we had very good care at both Hospitals, the care at St. Luke's was warmer and more personal (making it "better" in our eyes). Though we had the same out of pocket costs (both experiences put us well over our out-of-pocket family maximums), we did require more care at St. V's (and not just because we had twins). Prices being too high isn't socialist. It is "free enterprise" capitalism. There is a distortion of the market due to the oligopoly. quote:* quote: And, your second point reads as though you are agreeing that government mandated price controls won't work without causing market failures via lack of providers. Yes I agree with that, belive me or not I'm right winged (that in my country doesn't mean repubblican), but your talking of excess costs means you don't completely agree with this as the correct free market answer to "your prices are too high" is "mind your fucking business I can manage mine", what I'm saying is what's been described in terms of insurance prices and public spending in the USA shows that due to health's nature as basic need purchasing this kind of services mainly or solely from private providers is depressing the economy as you are paying more taxes for inadequate or no services. Free Markets isn't complete laissez faire free marketing. I don't agree with a completely unregulated market, regardless of how others may paint me and my beliefs. The only reason insurance prices are high, is because cost of individual procedures and services is high. Lower those costs, and you'll lower the cost of insurance. Putting in a price control won't maintain access and quality. One would have to wonder what would happen if the US population were to improve our lifestyles, reducing the demand for care. This doesn't require insurance. It doesn't require any medical professionals.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375