Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole dealing with insurance companies is insane. Heck, even if you are paying for it you still have to pay a deductible and HOPE your insurance covers whatever it is you need done. This is insane! From birth, everyone should automatically have all the access one needs without having to pay a dime. Every person should be able to walk into any hospital whenever and get whatever procedure/surgery etc. is needed without paying anything. We certainly could do it if we stopped all these stupid wars that our politicians constantly jack off to while watching us kill innocent men women and children and destroying everything.
Other than greed, is there any good reason we can't shut down all these health insurance companies and just have the govt itself foot the bill for every persons healthcare needs? God forbid rich people only have 50-100K to live off of compared to millions/billions.
Why? "Other than greed"? That's exactly it. Greed - which translates into the selfishness of Republicans who want to make sure nothing is "given away."
Why? "Other than greed"? That's exactly it. Greed - which translates into the selfishness of Republicans who want to make sure nothing is "given away."
Why should anything be given away, unless it's donated specifically for such? That which is given away has to be paid for by someone else. There isn't a magic "free stuff"-dispensing unicorn.
For those saying "But taxes!", funny how people living in European countries don't seem to mind. Paying extra in taxes is well worth the peace of mind knowing if you get sick or injured you won't have to worry about any financial issues due to it.
Well, theirs is non-profit. If we made it non-profit instead of our for-profit system it wouldn't cost that much. They don't pay any more in taxes then we do for healthcare now. It might even lower our share if divide evenly.
I'm for it if it's non-profit. The current for-profit mandate was ridiculous, but a non-profit universal system would save me money.
Of course, the stock market would crash, but it would eventually correct itself. Same that happened when Obama signed in his healthcare mandate.
For those saying "But taxes!", funny how people living in European countries don't seem to mind. Paying extra in taxes is well worth the peace of mind knowing if you get sick or injured you won't have to worry about any financial issues due to it.
Just implement a 25% VAT tax and put the middle class in the highest income tax bracket right along with the top 1% like they do. Deal?
Competition. Why dont we have it? The guv restricts medical learning institutions, limits doctors, ...
That's for your benefit and the benefit of everyone.
You can't just grab someone off the streets and say, "Hey, guess what? You're going to be a doctor!"
You're either born to be a doctor or you're not.
Only a very small percentage of the population has the skills and talent to be a doctor.
Of that very small percentage, an even smaller percentage actually want to become doctors.
Carpenters don't teach plumbers, and plumbers don't teach nurses, and nurses don't teach cavalry scouts, and cavalry scouts don't teach bankers and bankers don't teach chefs, and so on.
Like teaches like, because history for more than 10,000 years has repeatedly proven it is the best way to teach.
So, only other doctors can teach the very small fraction of the population capable and willing to be doctors.
And of the very small fraction of doctors, an even tinier fraction is both capable and willing to teach.
Just because you're an electrician, it doesn't logically follow that you simultaneously have the talent and skill to teach other electricians. Many people are knowledgeable in their job, but make lousy teachers.
So it is with doctors, too.
And that teeny tiny very small fraction of doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors, cannot teach 60 doctors at a time.
For one thing, 60 doctor trainees won't even fit into a patient's room.
Trial and error has demonstrated that the teeny tiny very small fraction of doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors teach best with small groups of 8 to 12 interns.
That irrefutable fact naturally --not artificially -- limits the supply of doctors in the population.
Teaching schools are very expensive to operate, and increasing the number of teaching schools only increases the cost of healthcare.
Never mind the fact that you don't even have enough doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors, which means those additional teaching schools would be open, but under-staffed with qualified personnel, which would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the shortage of doctors.
Maybe you don't care if your doctor was trained by a garbage man, but I and many others do care.
I also don't want to undergo surgery with someone who got "Cs" and "Ds" in biology and physical anatomy.
The current system is nothing new. In the 16th Century, doctors (who were also often astrologers) trained for 10-12 years under the supervision of someone older and more experienced, precisely because of the benefit of learning the wisdom and knowledge of someone so experienced.
That's for your benefit and the benefit of everyone.
You can't just grab someone off the streets and say, "Hey, guess what? You're going to be a doctor!"
You're either born to be a doctor or you're not.
Only a very small percentage of the population has the skills and talent to be a doctor.
Of that very small percentage, an even smaller percentage actually want to become doctors.
Carpenters don't teach plumbers, and plumbers don't teach nurses, and nurses don't teach cavalry scouts, and cavalry scouts don't teach bankers and bankers don't teach chefs, and so on.
Like teaches like, because history for more than 10,000 years has repeatedly proven it is the best way to teach.
So, only other doctors can teach the very small fraction of the population capable and willing to be doctors.
And of the very small fraction of doctors, an even tinier fraction is both capable and willing to teach.
Just because you're an electrician, it doesn't logically follow that you simultaneously have the talent and skill to teach other electricians. Many people are knowledgeable in their job, but make lousy teachers.
So it is with doctors, too.
And that teeny tiny very small fraction of doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors, cannot teach 60 doctors at a time.
For one thing, 60 doctor trainees won't even fit into a patient's room.
Trial and error has demonstrated that the teeny tiny very small fraction of doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors teach best with small groups of 8 to 12 interns.
That irrefutable fact naturally --not artificially -- limits the supply of doctors in the population.
Teaching schools are very expensive to operate, and increasing the number of teaching schools only increases the cost of healthcare.
Never mind the fact that you don't even have enough doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors, which means those additional teaching schools would be open, but under-staffed with qualified personnel, which would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the shortage of doctors.
Maybe you don't care if your doctor was trained by a garbage man, but I and many others do care.
I also don't want to undergo surgery with someone who got "Cs" and "Ds" in biology and physical anatomy.
The current system is nothing new. In the 16th Century, doctors (who were also often astrologers) trained for 10-12 years under the supervision of someone older and more experienced, precisely because of the benefit of learning the wisdom and knowledge of someone so experienced.
The system in place now works just fine as it is.
I can vet a doctor, a mechanic, a barber, a pizza maker, and a heart surgeon on my own or better yet through a voluntary association that doesn't have a monopoly of force and currency on the players involved.
That's for your benefit and the benefit of everyone.
You can't just grab someone off the streets and say, "Hey, guess what? You're going to be a doctor!"
You're either born to be a doctor or you're not.
Only a very small percentage of the population has the skills and talent to be a doctor.
Of that very small percentage, an even smaller percentage actually want to become doctors.
Carpenters don't teach plumbers, and plumbers don't teach nurses, and nurses don't teach cavalry scouts, and cavalry scouts don't teach bankers and bankers don't teach chefs, and so on.
Like teaches like, because history for more than 10,000 years has repeatedly proven it is the best way to teach.
So, only other doctors can teach the very small fraction of the population capable and willing to be doctors.
And of the very small fraction of doctors, an even tinier fraction is both capable and willing to teach.
Just because you're an electrician, it doesn't logically follow that you simultaneously have the talent and skill to teach other electricians. Many people are knowledgeable in their job, but make lousy teachers.
So it is with doctors, too.
And that teeny tiny very small fraction of doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors, cannot teach 60 doctors at a time.
For one thing, 60 doctor trainees won't even fit into a patient's room.
Trial and error has demonstrated that the teeny tiny very small fraction of doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors teach best with small groups of 8 to 12 interns.
That irrefutable fact naturally --not artificially -- limits the supply of doctors in the population.
Teaching schools are very expensive to operate, and increasing the number of teaching schools only increases the cost of healthcare.
Never mind the fact that you don't even have enough doctors who are both capable and willing to teach other doctors, which means those additional teaching schools would be open, but under-staffed with qualified personnel, which would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the shortage of doctors.
Maybe you don't care if your doctor was trained by a garbage man, but I and many others do care.
I also don't want to undergo surgery with someone who got "Cs" and "Ds" in biology and physical anatomy.
The current system is nothing new. In the 16th Century, doctors (who were also often astrologers) trained for 10-12 years under the supervision of someone older and more experienced, precisely because of the benefit of learning the wisdom and knowledge of someone so experienced.
The system in place now works just fine as it is.
aside crom the lofty pedestal you've put them on, why is learning to be a doctor different than any other field? And 10,000 years later there is no other way to train a doctor? There are plenty of quacks and idiots practicing medicine now so I dont see how the governments licensure system has ensured competent healthcare? Just keep believing in your rigged crony health care system, I'm confident the market can come up with a much better alternatives.
Could you elaborate on the bold with links to reliable sources (no conspiracy mags, etc)?
There are links within the story Recess posted that substantiate the statements made in the article.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
