Free health care is the way to go. I've been treated extremely well in our public hospitals.
I find it amazing people say socialized healthcare is better, when life expectancy in the US is the same, and infant mortality is much lower in the US than the UK.
HC costs need to be brought down, but I can assure you that socializing medicine WILL ruin the system.
One of the major issues with the US healthcare system is the tragic understaffing at hospitals by qualified nurses and doctors. This drives up healthcare costs, as they become in more demand, and hospitals/practices give more financial incentives to join their staff (which drives up the cost of said healthcare).
I want to ask this question of everyone that wants to socialize US healthcare: How can we pay for every person to see a doctor, when there's no doctor to see?
Ironically, Ron Paul (a doctor) has the best solution: Allow RNs a greater degree of freedom in medicine. If they were allowed to diagnose and perscribe routine medicines for patients, you'd free up many, MANY doctors for doing what they were designed to: fix the major problems in surgeries, and as specialists.
I worked in the medical field in Ohio for the year as a transportation officer. I traveled to 100 medical facilities in Ohio. I can assure you that, given their current workloads, socialized medicine would virtually ruin healthcare. If anyone wants to provide an opposing view, please provide valid arguments on how it'll work, because it can't.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
I am opposed to the NHS. In principle it is great but when you come right down to it, it is a bureaucratic mess that forces people to travel to a doctor when they have one that is close by that could do the same job. It taxes the hell out of the average worker by deductions. In all, it is a POS socialistic system that the U.S. does not need. People need quality over quantity not shortages in care b/c Dems find it necessary to appease Michael Moore 
Edit: Also in the porkulus bill was a provision that creates "the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446)." I prefer my doc and me to make decisions about my future not this damned gov't.
I dunno, but I am in Canada, and to be honest, some of us have a hard time believing people out there have to pay for every little checkup. It's one of the reasons Obama is so popular.
But you people don't even seem to want it, lol. Oh well.
| halogamer1989 said: I am opposed to the NHS. In principle it is great but when you come right down to it, it is a bureaucratic mess that forces people to travel to a doctor when they have one that is close by that could do the same job. It taxes the hell out of the average worker by deductions. In all, it is a POS socialistic system that the U.S. does not need. People need quality over quantity not shortages in care b/c Dems find it necessary to appease Michael Moore
Edit: Also in the porkulus bill was a provision that creates "the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446)." I prefer my doc and me to make decisions about my future not this damned gov't. |
Both things that you describe insurance companies do already.
Insurance companies are a bureaucratic nightmare. HMO's and many cheaper forms of insurance do restrict to varying degrees the doctors you can see.
Insurance companies tell patients what treatment they can and can't receive.
Even if the government had BOTH those qualities if they were providing care, they won't allow an insurance company to forcibly drop you because of a pre-existing condition or a condition that develops.
None of your arguments at all prove your point that the current system is better. If anything, they suggest that they system SHOULD change.
And people act like we would somehow be paying more for healthcare than we already are. The only difference would be you are paying your fees to a different person. If anything, a single payer system would reduce the amount of bureaucracy (insurance companies spend a lot on overhead and there are a ton of different insurance companies) that artificially raises cost.
America will most likely end up doing what Britain currently does, a hybrid private public system where you don't have to use the NHS system and can use a private doctor.
Furthermore, didn't the American people elect Obama on a campaign promise of changing healthcare, and relatively drastically at that? Isn't this what the American people want? Who are you to say what is better for them?
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
@ Mr. Stickball.
I love Ron Paul. Alot. But this...
Ironically, Ron Paul (a doctor) has the best solution: Allow RNs a greater degree of freedom in medicine. If they were allowed to diagnose and perscribe routine medicines for patients, you'd free up many, MANY doctors for doing what they were designed to: fix the major problems in surgeries, and as specialists.
Make no sense. I love the Idea. But as a future Rn. Dumb. Thats why we have nurse practitioners. You shouldn't be on the same level as a doctor without a masters degree.
OFF TOPIC: MD's are 50% assholes or 50% nicest people on earth. SURGEONS: All of them will tell you they are gods. There is one at a hospital that won't prescribe analgesics for a vag hyst because he feels that they don't need it. Disgusting.
Edit- also surgeons aren't even usually employed by hospitals, except for the ER. They rent out the OR's.
akuma587 said:
Both things that you describe insurance companies do already. Insurance companies are a bureaucratic nightmare. HMO's and many cheaper forms of insurance do restrict to varying degrees the doctors you can see. Insurance companies tell patients what treatment they can and can't receive. Even if the government had BOTH those qualities if they were providing care, they won't allow an insurance company to forcibly drop you because of a pre-existing condition or a condition that develops. None of your arguments at all prove your point that the current system is better. If anything, they suggest that they system SHOULD change. And people act like we would somehow be paying more for healthcare than we already are. The only difference would be you are paying your fees to a different person. If anything, a single payer system would reduce the amount of bureaucracy (insurance companies spend a lot on overhead and there are a ton of different insurance companies) that artificially raises cost. America will most likely end up doing what Britain currently does, a hybrid private public system where you don't have to use the NHS system and can use a private doctor. Furthermore, didn't the American people elect Obama on a campaign promise of changing healthcare, and relatively drastically at that? Isn't this what the American people want? Who are you to say what is better for them?
|
I am a member of the opposing viewpoint that opposes socialism being rammed down the throats of the men and women of this nation. I am of the mindset that healthcare should be provided at a reasonable cost to citizens with little or no gov't intrusion. I am for electronic filing but not when it creates a system of gov't that "checks and balances" what doctors can and cannot do. If the gov't puts a cost limit of a procedure and the doc is forced to comply the you are SOL, aren't you. No thing in this world is given to a person and there is no free lunch. Remember that.
You disagree with me and that is fine but at least let me explain my reasoning. In closing, America is and never will be Britain in culture or replicated institution. There will be no Queen, King, or PM at 10 Downing St.
You can't ram something down people's throats when they vote for it. Obama ran on reforming healthcare and was elected on that issue. Are you telling him not to fulfill his campaign promises?
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
| kabhold said: @ Mr. Stickball. Edit- also surgeons aren't even usually employed by hospitals, except for the ER. They rent out the OR's. |
Yet so many nurses can do basic functions that NPs and doctors are forced to do. The issue still remains that the credentialing of NPs and Doctors are so insanely high that there aren't enough of them to go around. Yet a good RN can do the same basic things that an NP can. And that's what Ron was/is arguing: RN's know basic skills of an NP, so why not allow them to do it?
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
