Only The Rich & The Welfare Poor Get Good Health Care (solutions, how much)
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.
I snipped it because I once received an infraction for copyright violation, and don't want another one. Also, your post was very long, and anyone could click on it and see the whole thing. I said I had some copyright concerns. It's up to the mods to look into these things.
You are the one who made various accusations of me, which I shall not repeat, as they are on the record, so to speak.
And, in case you have a short memory, your attack on me, followed my post. So, I didn't attack YOU, I responded to your unwarranted attack on ME.
(ex: "Your rant", "This diatribe, which I am certain is lifted from somewhere", "shows a complete lack of knowledge of the health care professions", "You want to go back to the days of snake-oil salesmen")
I may be mistaken, but aren't the words: rant, diatribe, lifted (plagiarism), and false denunciations coupled with misrepresentation nothing less than a personal attack on me?
Tag -- -- you're IT!
And for my personal opinion on UNIVERSAL health care, as opposed to NATIONAL health care insurance, I have stated that I prefer that EVERYONE have the right to treat everyone, to the best of their ability, and not at risk of prosecution for "unlicensed practice of medicine". And that medicine be not under the control of the government nor its designated monopoly.
And that advanced health care education be available to all, and not rationed, via medical schools. Nor should trained care givers be made deliberately scarce, keeping up prices. And that malpractice tort reform should eliminate the need for malpractice insurance (an abomination). And that places of treatment (i.e, hospitals) should not be restricted to allopathic treatment.
Nor should industrialization and mass production techniques be kept from medical care. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with "assembly line medicine" if the patient gets better, at the lowest cost to him.
An example of the inexpensive medical care is cataract surgery in the third world. The Wellness Revolution - Geoff Tabin
Tabin and Ruit deliver cataract surgery at $20 per surgery. Which is 175 times cheaper than $3,500 (U.S.A.) pricetag, thanks to the medical monopoly insurance supported “health care industry”.
Extrapolate that cost differential across the board, and you may also suspect that "National Health Care" is nothing but another scam by government to gain control and gain revenue, at our expense.
And for my personal opinion on UNIVERSAL health care, as opposed to NATIONAL health care insurance, I have stated that I prefer that EVERYONE have the right to treat everyone, to the best of their ability, and not at risk of prosecution for "unlicensed practice of medicine". And that medicine be not under the control of the government nor its designated monopoly. And that advanced health care education be available to all, and not rationed, via medical schools. Nor should trained care givers be made deliberately scarce, keeping up prices.
Suggested Implementation:
Starting in elementary school, health care education should be part of the syllabus. Run the gamut from first aid, advanced first aid, electives for emergency medical treatment, diagnosis, treatment, setting bones, and perhaps advanced biochemistry. Those who have an aptitude or desire, should have access to more advanced materials. Set up apprenticeship programs with local medical care givers. Prospective physicians or advanced care givers shouldn't be restricted by a monopoly association.
Instead of limiting credentials to medical school graduates, hold national tests (or state wide tests) for establishing one's credentials and skills in health care. Ditto for advanced specialties. It doesn't matter where or how you learned, but that you can demonstrate your skill and knowledge that determines your credentials.
The government's role is limited to maintaining a credential bank, that anyone can access. The government does not dictate what is and what is not "allowable treatment".
Nor should those who gain credentials be "tracked" into subsets - such as nurses who can't transfer their credits and experience toward becoming a physician.
I believe that free choice, education, and informed consumers is a better way to reduce the cost for medical treatment, and provide more care for more people.
Suggested Implementation:
Starting in elementary school, health care education should be part of the syllabus. Run the gamut from first aid, advanced first aid, electives for emergency medical treatment, diagnosis, treatment, setting bones, and perhaps advanced biochemistry. Those who have an aptitude or desire, should have access to more advanced materials. Set up apprenticeship programs with local medical care givers. Prospective physicians or advanced care givers shouldn't be restricted by a monopoly association.
Instead of limiting credentials to medical school graduates, hold national tests (or state wide tests) for establishing one's credentials and skills in health care. Ditto for advanced specialties. It doesn't matter where or how you learned, but that you can demonstrate your skill and knowledge that determines your credentials.
The government's role is limited to maintaining a credential bank, that anyone can access. The government does not dictate what is and what is not "allowable treatment".
Nor should those who gain credentials be "tracked" into subsets - such as nurses who can't transfer their credits and experience toward becoming a physician.
I believe that free choice, education, and informed consumers is a better way to reduce the cost for medical treatment, and provide more care for more people.
Would you also limit the income that any health care provider under your scheme could earn?
Every society, every culture has its "healers", regardless of what they are called. In the past, many were educated by apprenticeship, etc. The reason for formal education is to ensure that there is a base of knowledge that everyone has. I do not understand the purpose of returning to a less educational method of "training", rather than educating health professionals. When one needs the service of a health care practitioner, the licesne tells you that the person has at least met the minimum qualifications for the job. It would be pretty tedious to have to spend hours looking up every practitioner's credentials before making an appointment. I just don't get it.
Every society, every culture has its "healers", regardless of what they are called. In the past, many were educated by apprenticeship, etc. The reason for formal education is to ensure that there is a base of knowledge that everyone has. I do not understand the purpose of returning to a less educational method of "training", rather than educating health professionals. When one needs the service of a health care practitioner, the licesne tells you that the person has at least met the minimum qualifications for the job. It would be pretty tedious to have to spend hours looking up every practitioner's credentials before making an appointment. I just don't get it.
"A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing."
The scheme that was offered by the other poster? I know I would not want to be treated by those without the formal training now required.
Heck, I would not want my dog to be treated by anyone under that scheme!
Since i joined city data i have tried to learn the truth behind the jealth debate. I came on here as a impartial novice and wanted to hear both sides of the argument. I have now started looking deeper into the big difeeences between a uhc system and the current healthn system here.
I was given quite a lot of info on a uhc on this site but to ge facts about private insurance and why a uhc would not be a better option here was virtually impossible. lots of talk but no real substance.
The more i am looking into the health options the more amazed i am at how we in America allow the big insurance companies to dictate to us. This is our health we are talking about not a car company or bank our health. To allow a single American to wake up in fear of contracting a illnes is beyond criminal but millions in America do. I am soo past the stupid excuses and reasons to keep the present health system that fails millions of Americans evry day.
It is now time for a real health system for us all, not just mr and mrs wealthy.
United Healthcare CEO William McGuire. (See above)
Regardless, explain to me why should I be forced (or settle) to pay for profitability of the middlemen that I could do without?
Pathetic reason to oppose a plan that promises to save lives, jobs, from bankruptcies and reduce the cost of healthcare in this country, including the half baked reality that is medicare/medicaid. And if you must continue to be selfish, that you want to oppose for job security reasons, be my guest, but don't expect others to feel bad for you.
Besides, there is no reason to believe that people can't buy private insurance. They do in countries where UHC exists (which is the entire developed world, and many developing countries). It would be only the business you're defending that puts your job at risk.
It is not selfish to enjoy the fruits of ones labor. Do you suggest that people who are employed in frivolous occupations such as Hollywood should have unlimited earning potential but people who are involved in vital life saving endevours should have caps on their earning potential. As soon as you stop being selfish and put a cap on your own earning potential you may be able to speak on the subject.
Where are doctors earnings capped? i was reading about what doctors can ern in the uk annd they can earn in the public sector and in the private sector its a bit like having the public sector as your steady salary and the private as your huge bonuses. I talked to a poster on here who knows the uk system well and he told me that doctors do very very well in the uk and they have a fantastic lifestyle. considering how expensive it is to live in London they must be doing good.
Where are doctors earnings capped? i was reading about what doctors can ern in the uk annd they can earn in the public sector and in the private sector its a bit like having the public sector as your steady salary and the private as your huge bonuses. I talked to a poster on here who knows the uk system well and he told me that doctors do very very well in the uk and they have a fantastic lifestyle. considering how expensive it is to live in London they must be doing good.
Depends on the system, the Canadian system caps reimbursement. And not suprisingly there is a physician shortage.
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.
