Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Ever have your HMO tell you: "Sorry, that prescription is not on the plan formulary. Go ask you doctor to prescribe something else.". We have." Whenever my HMO says it can't cover a certain presecription, my doctor just puts me on it anyway and gives me all the free samples he gets from the pharmaceutical company. How's that for screwing the system!
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^That works if its a short term treatment. But what if its a long term treatment?
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Whenever my HMO says it can't cover a certain presecription, my doctor just puts me on it anyway and gives me all the free samples he gets from the pharmaceutical company. How's that for screwing the system!<< Can I see your doctor, please?
Originally Posted By ecdc So let me see if I can sum up: DAR starts this topic by citing Walter Reed and then drawing the conclusion that government health care won't work. When he's questioned on this, he says the private sector should do it. But we're given absolutely no explanation of why they would do this, given that it certainly doesn't seem profitable for them to provide health care to people who can't afford it. So presumably, you and I would be paying for it (which is already happening), or the HMOs would be paying for it. Either way, HMOs make no more profit, but charge current subscribers far more for no more benefits, or pay for it themselves. I can't imagine why they haven't dived in yet! When pushed further, we're told "Just look at North Korea," even though North Korea and America couldn't be less analagous and there are any number of other countries that could be brought up. But I'll confess, what I find most troubling about the whole discussion is the insistence that if one has a secure job, then all is well. Millions of Americans don't have health care. As Kar2oonMan pointed out, we're already paying for it but they receive sub-standard care at best. There's any number of ideas and solutions out there and plenty of room for debate, but if "Look at Walter Reed and North Korea" aren't the most obvious strawmen, then I don't know what is. What Would Jesus Do doesn't = Support George W. Bush cause he likes God. My mom is a nurse for the state's largest health care provider. She told me that as patients were leaving, doctors and nurses were now required to say "Thank you for choosing IHC." I think that's indicative of the whole problem: people are treated like customers or clients, not like patients in need of health care.
Originally Posted By DAR Let's sum everything up: I suggest that because Walter Reed is a government run hospital providing health care, maybe having the government run our health care isn't the best idea. Or at least it's something we need to take seriously consider if we want to do it. Yet I'm labeled clueless idiot. I suggest that the most extreme measure of government run health care could be what North Korea does. I never say that it will come to that. Yet I'm labeled clueless idiot. I write that the private sector would still be better for health care, because if the government runs, costs will rise even more, and it will effect middle class people like myself,. Yet I'm labeled clueless idiot. This next one is my favorite. I write that I have the great fortune of working for a company that will stay here in Milwaukee and the outlying area and the chances of me losing my job are nil. Yet not only am I labeled a clueless idiot. I'm even told that all company's work the same and where I work is no different. So how's that for a summary?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>So how's that for a summary?<< If that's how you read the thread, then I truly am sorry. I don't think you're a clueless idiot at all. Actually, that's why I'm a bit surprised at your comments thus far - you're a smart fellow, but truthfully, your arguments here have been quite weak and full of fallacies. Like I said, there's plenty of room for debate on the right way to handle America's health care, but I don't think citing the strawmen of Walter Reed (one of hundreds of government institutions providing health care in various forms) or North Korea is a way to make headway in that debate. All companies most certainly are not the same. They are run differently, have different degrees of security and risk, have different practices, and offer different services. In a recession, a bookstore is certainly going to have a harder time than a grocery store or other, more essential services. But I think the point was, and one in which I agree, is that *all* private, for-profit companies, have money as their bottom-line. If any company (including yours) had to make a decision between laying off employees and staying in business, or keeping employees and going out of business, you know which one they'd take. Yes, there are certainly rare jobs out there that are virtually layoff-proof. Perhaps yours is one of them. But no one should kid themselves that they are more important than the bottom-line. Forced with a choice, every single solitary company will pick money over people. That's the problem with capitalism and the problem with a capitalist health care system. The primary goal of U.S. heath care providers is to make money, not to help or heal patients. I'm not saying they're all cartoonish villains rubbing their hands together and squealing "money, money, MONEY!" But they aren't a charity; they are about making a profit and making their owners and shareholders rich.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Like I said, there's plenty of room for debate on the right way to handle America's health care, but I don't think citing the strawmen of Walter Reed (one of hundreds of government institutions providing health care in various forms) or North Korea is a way to make headway in that debate.>> Again North Korea is an extreme example and it will never come to that. And people should at least look at the Reed situation as at least a cautionary tale of what can happen. <<Yes, there are certainly rare jobs out there that are virtually layoff-proof. Perhaps yours is one of them. But no one should kid themselves that they are more important than the bottom-line. Forced with a choice, every single solitary company will pick money over people.>> The bottom line for my company is making sure our policyholders are taken care of. And the way it's handled is through direct contact with the employees of the company. <<That's the problem with capitalism and the problem with a capitalist health care system. The primary goal of U.S. heath care providers is to make money, not to help or heal patients.>> But what if the money finds it's way to cure disease? Provide immunization for the poor? My biggest worries about the government completely taking over health care are it's going to cost us even more than what we pay now.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>If population growth stops, won't economic growth stop?<< If it does then your economic system is unsustainable. (And yes, ours is unsustainable.)
Originally Posted By DlandJB I think that's indicative of the whole problem: people are treated like customers or clients, not like patients in need of health care.>>> Exactly. My doctor said something to this effect once. He said initially medicine was considered an art, then it became a science. Now it is a business. He wasn't happy about it.
Originally Posted By jonvn If you think the chance of you losing your job is nil, then you are kind of clueless, yes. You never know what is going to happen in life, and you are not guaranteed anything. You may have a lower than average chance of losing your job, but the chance of you losing it is certainly NOT zero. That's ridiculous.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Our previous doctor (now retired), a nice, very Jewish man, used to pine for the days when most hospitals were run by the Catholic Church. He felt hospital care was far better then.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My biggest worries about the government completely taking over health care are it's going to cost us even more than what we pay now.<< That's a valid concern. But I'm concerned also that the way things are working right now is no solution. Real live human beings are suffering because of it, and it isn't because they are lazy or anything else. It happens often through no fault of their own -- I know that idea runs totally counter to Libertarian thinking, but it's just a fact. While you personally may be safe, think about other people who don't happen to have jobs for life, which is most people.
Originally Posted By DAR Then maybe the best solution would be to have the private companies still run our health care system and the government comes in where they feel it's necessary.
Originally Posted By DAR <<If you think the chance of you losing your job is nil, then you are kind of clueless, yes. You never know what is going to happen in life, and you are not guaranteed anything. You may have a lower than average chance of losing your job, but the chance of you losing it is certainly NOT zero. That's ridiculous.>> I give up. Yes I'm probably going to lose my job, because you know better.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Then maybe the best solution would be to have the private companies still run our health care system and the government comes in where they feel it's necessary.<< You wouldn't believe what I pay for health care for my family every month. And it's about to go up again. At a certain point, there is a very real possibility that I would be unable to afford the premiums. Hard choices would have to be made, and as I look to cut back on sending on vacations or going out to dinner once in awhile, there would be a ripple effect. Or, the stress could kill me and my life insurance company, who is banking on the likelihood that I won't kick the bucket at 45, will suddenly have to pay out rather than get another 30 years worth of premiums from me. Yet another ripple effect. Ideally, some other company would come along, eager to get whatever amount I can afford from me, and offer me coverage for just a few bucks less. But with healthcare, that doesn't seem to happen. There's no competitive pricing, unlike most other capitalistic enterprises, as healthcare costs continue to skyrocket.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Ideally, some other company would come along, eager to get whatever amount I can afford from me, and offer me coverage for just a few bucks less. But with healthcare, that doesn't seem to happen.>> A few years ago my doctor changed the healthcare provider he was under. I'm paying a little less than I did then.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Ideally, some other company would come along, eager to get whatever amount I can afford from me, and offer me coverage for just a few bucks less. But with healthcare, that doesn't seem to happen. There's no competitive pricing, unlike most other capitalistic enterprises, as healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. >> Not to mention that people with pre-existing conditions get turned away at the door and refused coverage. Unless you fall under the umbrella of an employer-based health plan, private citizens really have no chance of negotiating reasonable health plans on their own if they can even get coverage at all.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Yes I'm probably going to lose my job, because you know better." I didn't say you were PROBABLY going to lose your job. I said it is not impossible. And if you don't think it is not impossible, then yes, I do know better.
Originally Posted By jonvn It should also be noted that we spend more on health care in this country than any other nation. And yet we still have people who have no coverage.
Originally Posted By DAR <<And if you don't think it is not impossible, then yes, I do know better.>> It's not impossible at many other businesses. It's not possible where I work. But I've explained several times to you and I'm not going to do it again.
