U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,906 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16088

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
The Republican alternative that Trump/the GOP promised is (crickets.)
That's a Logical Fallacy.

As your Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, healthcare is intra-State commerce, not Interstate Commerce, and so is insurance.

It's shocking you don't understand that.

If you have issues, you should address them with your governor and State legislature, since it is they who in part created the nightmare you hate.

Why don't you lobby your State legislature to repeal the laws granting monopoly status to hospitals?

Or, do you believe monopolies are good?

Please, do tell.

After your State bans monopolies, then guess what? You'll be sort of like Switzerland.

Then your State can limit hospital owners to one per market. The Swiss limit one per canton, and that would be more or less a county in the US, and that really wouldn't work, but limiting one per Metropolitan Statistical Area or Micro-Statistical Area would work.

The your system would be like the Swiss, who enjoy cost-savings because they don't have hospital monopolies and they encourage competition.

Then your State can ban hospitals. Well, that would be illegal actually, but there is a way around that. For any medical facility that provides three or fewer services, no annual licensing fee.

For any medical facility that offers three or more services, charge an annual licensing fee equal to 50% of the their previous year's gross revenues.

That will eliminate hospitals.

Then, you'll be just like Switzerland, Germany, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and others.

Wait...I thought you wanted to be like them. You do want to be like them, don't you?

That's the problem with you people: None of you understand how or why their systems work. Their systems work, because they don't have monopolies, and because they abandoned the Hospital Model in favor of the Clinic-Polyclinic Model.

Unless you do the same, you won't save any money at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,906 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16088
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Oh wait! We did! It was the Affordable Care Act!
You're like talking to a pile of rocks.

The US has hospital monopolies; Europe does not.

The US relies exclusively on the antiquated costly ineffective Hospital Model; Europe abandoned it in favor of the inexpensive highly effective and efficient Clinic and Polyclinic Model.

Which part of that do you not understand?

The Swiss have no monopolies in their cantons, and no owner, group or entity can operate more than one medical facility in a canton, and they don't use hospitals, they use clinics and polyclinics.

That's why the Swiss pay less than Americans.

When the States muster up the courage to ban hospital monopolies and cartels, and enact legislation to stimulate the creation of clinics and polyclinics and get rid of hospitals, you'll be paying the same or less as the Swiss.

The States have to do that, since the federal government cannot interfere in that.

Your system is broken, and your State and federal governments broke it, and they did so largely at the behest of the American Hospital Association.

Overlaying a universal healthcare system on top of a broken system is not going to fix the problem, although obviously it will make you feel better, right to up the time you have actually use it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Midwest
31,375 posts, read 19,621,110 times
Reputation: 7869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That's a Logical Fallacy.

As your Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, healthcare is intra-State commerce, not Interstate Commerce, and so is insurance.

It's shocking you don't understand that.

If you have issues, you should address them with your governor and State legislature, since it is they who in part created the nightmare you hate.

Why don't you lobby your State legislature to repeal the laws granting monopoly status to hospitals?

Or, do you believe monopolies are good?

Please, do tell.

After your State bans monopolies, then guess what? You'll be sort of like Switzerland.

Then your State can limit hospital owners to one per market. The Swiss limit one per canton, and that would be more or less a county in the US, and that really wouldn't work, but limiting one per Metropolitan Statistical Area or Micro-Statistical Area would work.

The your system would be like the Swiss, who enjoy cost-savings because they don't have hospital monopolies and they encourage competition.

Then your State can ban hospitals. Well, that would be illegal actually, but there is a way around that. For any medical facility that provides three or fewer services, no annual licensing fee.

For any medical facility that offers three or more services, charge an annual licensing fee equal to 50% of the their previous year's gross revenues.

That will eliminate hospitals.

Then, you'll be just like Switzerland, Germany, Romania, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland and others.

Wait...I thought you wanted to be like them. You do want to be like them, don't you?

That's the problem with you people: None of you understand how or why their systems work. Their systems work, because they don't have monopolies, and because they abandoned the Hospital Model in favor of the Clinic-Polyclinic Model.

Unless you do the same, you won't save any money at all.
The US is closing hospitals in a rapid pace! Capitalism and healthcare don't mix.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-closures.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Fort Payne Alabama
1,208 posts, read 1,584,372 times
Reputation: 2303
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
The ACA brought health insurance to millions who could not afford it before. That is a good thing.
That's because someone else was paying, the US taxpayers!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
12,841 posts, read 4,856,387 times
Reputation: 5697
What does one call a big polyclinic? A General Hospital.

Been getting worked on by the system the last few months. Using the local general hospital mostly. You know what it is mostly? A polyclinic doing outpatient. And the equivalent sized building next door is purportedly a medical office building. You know what is really? A polyclinic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,732 posts, read 9,845,111 times
Reputation: 9851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman83 View Post
Yeah.. I dont think millions of religious quacks would hack it in the MODERN medical world.
Luckily socialism (tax funded research) has invented 99%* of medicine we enjoy today.. better then prayers.
* Most medicine research are funded by the government, then bought by corporations.
Fortunately, facts don't match with your opinions.
FYI : religious renunciants like Nuns / Sisters were not quacks, and in England, they still call nurses "sisters". And priests who studied medicine, had physicians' licenses, again, were not quacks.


As to paying for 'research' perhaps you are confusing NASA and the defense industry, and not the private sector, and the "hunt for grant money." Which is also another aberration due to socialism.


FWIW - I would prefer being cared for by people who wanted to do so, more than those who were merely paid to do so. . . especially since I would get stuck with the bottom of the barrel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Midwest
31,375 posts, read 19,621,110 times
Reputation: 7869
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreggT View Post
That's because someone else was paying, the US taxpayers!
Before that, we were paying for the uninsured in the form of increased medical bills. Why don't we get on board with universal and shed those high health insurance premiums?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 04:01 AM
 
36,893 posts, read 16,093,653 times
Reputation: 8384
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Better method is to support your opinion with facts and sources of that information rather than just being angry.
People who give others advise, should take that advise themselves!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 04:17 AM
 
975 posts, read 190,895 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Fortunately, facts don't match with your opinions.
FYI : religious renunciants like Nuns / Sisters were not quacks, and in England, they still call nurses "sisters". And priests who studied medicine, had physicians' licenses, again, were not quacks.


As to paying for 'research' perhaps you are confusing NASA and the defense industry, and not the private sector, and the "hunt for grant money." Which is also another aberration due to socialism.


FWIW - I would prefer being cared for by people who wanted to do so, more than those who were merely paid to do so. . . especially since I would get stuck with the bottom of the barrel.

Most new drugs invented today, are tax payer funded.. As drug companies grew larger and larger, they took over much of inventions, but still today buys of publicly funded research and renames it.


But, all right.. I´ll have Surgeon operate on my heart, while you have some quack that "wants to help" operate on your... Lets report back in a week..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2019, 08:29 AM
 
8,881 posts, read 3,933,647 times
Reputation: 1720
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
In an era where Medicare-for-All is now overwhelmingly popular amongst the general populace, a new study shows that the US would see significant savings from implementing such a system, in addition to improving the economy and well-being/mental health.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...us-51-trillion
I do not believe that Medicare for all will be lowering overall HC costs. It may well lower the cost of many if not most medical/surgical encounters. But in the end we will have many more such encounters. More patients will eventually gain access. And many patients will have more encounters if convenient enough with a Medicare for all program.

For several reasons. First being that much of medicine is always left undone in any one medical community. And this is very important, something I rarely see discussed. But after 45 years in medical practice, I can assure you this is significant. Especially if rural or in other areas of low or inconvenient access. Many patients simply do not follow through on all that their medical providers recommend. Again inconvenience, but also cost. And if we have enough future providers, and that of course is key, then the encounter costs will be much less an issue for patients and families. In many ways this is a good thing, if more patients follow their doctor's advice. For instance with routine preventatives, assuming that's good advice.

The way I see it, this will improve economies, local and general. Medicine is a service industry needing many local employees. And in the end will give us a healthier population.

IMO even with central cost controls as per Medicare, the overall costs will only rise moving forward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top