- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why can't the US have univeral healtcare with the current budget?
Posted on 10/3/23 at 11:10 pm to AgSGT
Posted on 10/3/23 at 11:10 pm to AgSGT
quote:There's noting "christian" about forcing others into "charity" at the end of a gun. Nor was our government ever formed to enforce mandatory religious charity. It's a desperate 'argument" from someone that can't win the argument on its merits.
Says the guy calling himself a Christian
1
Posted on 10/3/23 at 11:11 pm to Miketheseventh
quote:But it will get better, less corrupt, and cheaper when Congress controls ALL of healthcare. Shocking there are people that actually believe that.
That is because big pharma and their lobbyists own the majority of the politicians.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 5:28 am to AgSGT
Nice rambling on 3 separate comments, I must have struck a nerve.
No one is asking anyone to do everything, but if it’s not going to change anything for you personally (and would likely also benefit you too) you’re selfish if you don’t do it. Period. Sorry you’re having trouble with that obviously true concept.
Think you might wanna go read the Bible again.
No one is asking anyone to do everything, but if it’s not going to change anything for you personally (and would likely also benefit you too) you’re selfish if you don’t do it. Period. Sorry you’re having trouble with that obviously true concept.
Think you might wanna go read the Bible again.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 6:00 am to VolSquatch
quote:No. You simply are misinformed on the topic, and embarrassingly clueless as to that fact.
I must have struck a nerve.
E.g., You'd propose...
quote:...which is exactly what we are doing now. Further, it was pointed out in this thread.
Thats why the government wouldn't be implementing any actual medical care.... The government says we are going to pay X towards Y procedure.
quote:
Medicine should be like anything else, price & quality competitive. Currently, for the most part, it's price-fixed. Meaning the best and worst surgeons in the country get reimbursed identically to perform the same surgery. That is done under auspices of "saving money."
Because charges are fixed, the Feds decided the best way to limit cost was to limit the number of MDs being trained. So they went so far as to pay programs to cut back residency slots. Brilliant, eh?
Then you jump to unfounded, in fact ridiculous, conclusions:
quote:
the benefits of a healthier population down the road
As a poorly informed participant, you miss the pertinence of assertions such as the food stamp analogy. A little less snark and a little more thought would serve you well, Peebles.
This post was edited on 10/4/23 at 6:07 am
Posted on 10/4/23 at 7:49 am to VolSquatch
quote:
No one is asking anyone to do everything, but if it’s not going to change anything for you personally (and would likely also benefit you too) you’re selfish if you don’t do it.
Selfish? I've been called a lot of names, selfish isn't one of them.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:06 am to AgSGT
You're selfish
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:11 am to RaoulDuke504
Inertia. If the US was sane it would have a completely free healthcare market like everything else where we would all compete with each other for the best plans and force insurance companies to openly compete with each other. Failing that, we could have a single payer plan where the government gets a rate for everyone. The latter is far more inefficient.
But we have neither of those. We have this weird monster of a system where most people have health insurance through their work, some people have it through the government, and independent contractors and small business owners are forced to compete and pay far more than companies do for the same coverage. Why? Because this is the compromise we came to sixty years ago and people who make money from it have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It’s like everything else where we say “good enough” and then watch a slow motion decline
But we have neither of those. We have this weird monster of a system where most people have health insurance through their work, some people have it through the government, and independent contractors and small business owners are forced to compete and pay far more than companies do for the same coverage. Why? Because this is the compromise we came to sixty years ago and people who make money from it have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It’s like everything else where we say “good enough” and then watch a slow motion decline
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:16 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Why can't the US have univeral healtcare with the current budget?
We are under water 2T every year and you want to add universal healthcare?
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:18 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
...which is exactly what we are doing now.
You and I both know there is a difference between what I'm suggesting and the current system quote:
Meaning the best and worst surgeons in the country get reimbursed identically to perform the same surgery. That is done under auspices of "saving money."
And as I've laid out numerous times, you're free to pay extra yourself for a better surgeon who charges more. X procedure getting reimbursed for Y amount is not the same concept as the government saying "X procedure must COST this amount". You just outed yourself as not knowing what you're talking about if you can't understand the simple difference there.
quote:
Because charges are fixed, the Feds decided the best way to limit cost was to limit the number of MDs being trained. So they went so far as to pay programs to cut back residency slots. Brilliant, eh?
I don't think anyone with any sense would support this, but isn't supply a much more relevant issue? Lets say there are only ~5 brain surgeries of a certain variety done each year, and 5 doctors can perform it or at least have performed it in the past. Do we really need more people who can do that specific procedure? Certainly those 5 pass their knowledge on to a likely "successor" so to speak as they head to retirement. But that also doesn't mean we should legally prevent other people from learning it, and the market would determine the need for it even with a universal insurance system.
quote:
Then you jump to unfounded, in fact ridiculous, conclusions:
quote:
the benefits of a healthier population down the road
As a poorly informed participant, you miss the pertinence of assertions such as the food stamp analogy. A little less snark and a little more thought would serve you well, Peebles.
Treating people for relatively cheap things now before they become bigger problems later saves enormous amounts of money, as does catching bigger issues earlier. Low income people and small business owners often have bad or no insurance. Its a pretty common sense concept that both of those would lead to a healthier population overall. But, common sense isn't so common anymore. Apparently even less so in North Carolina.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:24 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:We don’t have a fricking budget.
Message
Why can't the US have univeral healtcare with the current budget?
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:26 am to RaoulDuke504
The real answer is that healthcare margins in the US are way too high and nobody is giving those up.
Doctors and healthcare admins, using insurance companies as a buffer, are what make healthcare so expensive in our country
Doctors and healthcare admins, using insurance companies as a buffer, are what make healthcare so expensive in our country
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:27 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
There's noting "christian" about forcing others into "charity" at the end of a gun.
TIL insurance is a charity and not a risk sharing model
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:29 am to RaoulDuke504
I bet a large piece of the 18.3% is to pharmaceutical companies. Then they make billions off of tax payer funded medicines. Its a money laundering scam.
This post was edited on 10/4/23 at 11:31 am
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:30 am to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Why can't the US have univeral healtcare with the current budget?
Are people even remotely aware of the budget crisis we find ourselves in? This is of course rhetorical, because the left has proven that they are completely clueless in that regard to make such absurd requests as that. It’s like arguing for spending more money we don’t have to build a pool in the back yard whilst termites are eating the house from within. The mandatory interest payments on the debt we already have at present are going to exceed our defense budget next FY or sooner, only increasing, and cuts have to be made to discretionary spending that comprises mere pennies on the dollar to our budget, and yet Democrats want universal healthcare. We are not going to even have a social security by time most of these knuckleheads retire, and they want to double down on their fiscal irresponsibility and fund a universal healthcare system.
You can take 100% of the rich citizen’s income exceeding 500k a year and still not even come close to addressing the financial troubles this country is in right now, troubles that are only getting worse by the day the longer it is ignored and the can is kicked down the street.
The great unplugged prove that there is NO HOPE for this country. None!!! They don’t learn from it. They just double down on their own lies and ignorance. Only when they are standing in the soup line will they be forced to deal in realities, and even then they will somehow find a way to shirk the blame and place it upon people who’ve been screaming at the top of their lungs that we need to rein government back in.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:42 am to MAADFACTS
quote:Pretty much nailed it.
If the US was sane it would have a completely free healthcare market like everything else where we would all compete with each other for the best plans and force insurance companies to openly compete with each other. Failing that, we could have a single payer plan where the government gets a rate for everyone. The latter is far more inefficient.
But we have neither of those. We have this weird monster of a system where most people have health insurance through their work, some people have it through the government, and independent contractors and small business owners are forced to compete and pay far more than companies do for the same coverage. Why? Because this is the compromise we came to sixty years ago and people who make money from it have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It’s like everything else where we say “good enough” and then watch a slow motion decline
Meanwhile, the number of US physicians entering practice is restricted via government regulation and/or pressure. The premise is less doctors equates to lower healthcare costs. It is as if the folks setting policy never heard of supply-demand. US Med School acceptance rates run about 5.5%. Upon completion, entrance into residencies is highly competitive. Further, women are an increasingly prominent % of those numbers, and statistically they are far more likely to abridge their careers and/or workload.
The brilliant solution? Import foreign medical grads, and train more physician extenders, each of whom charge basically equivalent fees to US-trained MDs. SMH.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:49 am to VolSquatch
quote:You don't understand how medical billing works. With the rare field exception (e.g., plastics), or a cash-basis or concierge model, fees are set based on medicare rates.
you're free to pay extra yourself for a better surgeon who charges more. X procedure getting reimbursed for Y amount is not the same concept as the government saying "X procedure must COST this amount".
quote:
You just outed yourself as not knowing what you're talking about
Oh man.Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:55 am to VolSquatch
quote:VolSquatch, try to absorb this.
Because charges are fixed, the Feds decided the best way to limit cost was to limit the number of MDs being trained. So they went so far as to pay programs to cut back residency slots.
-----
I don't think anyone with any sense would support this
The Feds don't care if you support it or not, that is what they did. They cut back the number of training programs to limit supply of MDs, to limit access, under the premise it would save money.
Are we clear?
Those are the same Feds you want in charge of the entire system.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 12:25 pm to RaoulDuke504
Look at what's happening in the UK right now. The healthcare workers for the NHS are having the biggest strike in history. The NHS has lost nearly 100,000 nurses and doctors which is putting so many patients' lives in jeopardy.
The nurses there want higher pay but are too fricking stupid to understand that higher pay is going to increase COL and tax rate since the NHS is a tax-funded government organization.
It's a shitty system all around and nobody wins.
The nurses there want higher pay but are too fricking stupid to understand that higher pay is going to increase COL and tax rate since the NHS is a tax-funded government organization.
It's a shitty system all around and nobody wins.
This post was edited on 10/4/23 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 10/4/23 at 12:35 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Are people even remotely aware of the budget crisis we find ourselves in?
It was a budget crisis two decades ago.
We have a debt crisis.
We are bankrupt.
And the answer to your question is no. People don’t realize what that means and what’s coming.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 1:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Feds don't care if you support it or not, that is what they did.
Yeah, and in this discussion I'm defending a version of something that I personally would support while you are attacking a version of it that you don't like. Its essentially two separate arguments not even against what either of us is saying
If they try to implement a system that doesn't fix some of those large issues (some of which you've pointed out) I personally would not support it. I'm saying there is a path to get me TO support something like this, IF set up correctly. quote:
Those are the same Feds you want in charge of the entire system.
I don't want those feds in charge of that system.
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News