User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 61

Thread: Factors In Healthcare Outcomes

  1. #11
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The US government is also the biggest poluter in the US if not the world.

  2. #12
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Actually a universal health care system does not need to change anything except the insurance companies (and even they can have a place in systems like the Australian one). The Dept of Public Health, or a similar body, is the insurer, and the funds come from general taxation and a 2.5% levy on taxable income. The Australian rate of taxation is not higher overall than the American rates, but the marginal rates for the top earners might be higher.

    The main health providers and researchers are private practitioners and corporations, who agree to certain set rates for various procedures, and are paid by the government department concerned. Australia's health care system is rated higher than the US one by the WHO.

    Here's what happens -

    You get sick and you go to the doctor of your choice.

    He treats you or refers you to a specialist, who treats you or refers you to a hospital. Which he, not the government, recommends.

    You get better, and the doctor or hospital sends the bill to the govt department, who pays it. You do not pay anything at the point of treatment.

    Other countries do, but Australia doesn't include dental or optical care for anyone except veterans of the armed forces, or pensioners.

    So, I can see no reason why the USA shouldn't keep its excellent physicians, hospitals and research labs, and just do away with private insurance companies. Have a single payer system financed by taxation, like every other developed nation does. It shouldn't be a matter of ideology - it's not socialism to make sure everyone has health care - and a healthy society is a happier and more productive society.

    Since what you pay is taken little by little and hardly noticed, and you don't pay at the pump, why does this not lead to overuse and abuse, sending costs skyrocketing? --Basically the same argument as the OP, government policies have lead to unhealthy people who need and demand more health care, sending costs skyrocketing.

  3. #13
    Points: 264,370, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307872
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,543
    Points
    264,370
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,661
    Thanked 39,246x in 27,867 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Actually a universal health care system does not need to change anything except the insurance companies (and even they can have a place in systems like the Australian one). The Dept of Public Health, or a similar body, is the insurer, and the funds come from general taxation and a 2.5% levy on taxable income. The Australian rate of taxation is not higher overall than the American rates, but the marginal rates for the top earners might be higher.

    The main health providers and researchers are private practitioners and corporations, who agree to certain set rates for various procedures, and are paid by the government department concerned. Australia's health care system is rated higher than the US one by the WHO.

    Here's what happens -

    You get sick and you go to the doctor of your choice.

    He treats you or refers you to a specialist, who treats you or refers you to a hospital. Which he, not the government, recommends.

    You get better, and the doctor or hospital sends the bill to the govt department, who pays it. You do not pay anything at the point of treatment.

    Other countries do, but Australia doesn't include dental or optical care for anyone except veterans of the armed forces, or pensioners.

    So, I can see no reason why the USA shouldn't keep its excellent physicians, hospitals and research labs, and just do away with private insurance companies. Have a single payer system financed by taxation, like every other developed nation does. It shouldn't be a matter of ideology - it's not socialism to make sure everyone has health care - and a healthy society is a happier and more productive society.
    Eventually, you run out of other people's wealth. Then rationing care becomes the control mechanism.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  4. #14

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Docthehun View Post
    When I get a chance, I'll dig up the list of countries who've adopted universal health and the year they implemented their plan. It's actually pretty impressive and leads me to wonder if it's such a disastrous idea, why haven't they abandoned this medical socialism. Perhaps we should at least take a hard look at having the world's best medical program and not worry how it gets labeled.
    Doc, my old friend, where's the constitutional basis for it? There's many good (or bad) things that we could or might do that sound good but fall outside of the constitution. If the people want it, let's amend the constitution and guarantee the right to accessible healthcare.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Docthehun (05-26-2017)

  6. #15
    Points: 222,626, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 32.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranYour first Group
    Ethereal's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    468804
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67,628
    Points
    222,626
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    14,219
    Thanked 41,536x in 26,005 Posts
    Mentioned
    1169 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Actually a universal health care system does not need to change anything except the insurance companies (and even they can have a place in systems like the Australian one). The Dept of Public Health, or a similar body, is the insurer, and the funds come from general taxation and a 2.5% levy on taxable income. The Australian rate of taxation is not higher overall than the American rates, but the marginal rates for the top earners might be higher.

    The main health providers and researchers are private practitioners and corporations, who agree to certain set rates for various procedures, and are paid by the government department concerned. Australia's health care system is rated higher than the US one by the WHO.

    Here's what happens -

    You get sick and you go to the doctor of your choice.

    He treats you or refers you to a specialist, who treats you or refers you to a hospital. Which he, not the government, recommends.

    You get better, and the doctor or hospital sends the bill to the govt department, who pays it. You do not pay anything at the point of treatment.

    Other countries do, but Australia doesn't include dental or optical care for anyone except veterans of the armed forces, or pensioners.

    So, I can see no reason why the USA shouldn't keep its excellent physicians, hospitals and research labs, and just do away with private insurance companies. Have a single payer system financed by taxation, like every other developed nation does. It shouldn't be a matter of ideology - it's not socialism to make sure everyone has health care - and a healthy society is a happier and more productive society.
    Here's one reason why: Lots of Americans like their private health insurance.



    Another reason why: The US government is corrupt and heavily influenced by corporate lobbying, as evidenced by their promotion of excess sugar consumption. To entrust them with financing America's healthcare is kind of like asking a fox to guard your hen-house.

    Yet another reason why: The USA's population is several times larger than countries with "universal healthcare", making issues of scale and efficiency unavoidable. Put another way, financing the healthcare of 24 million people is much different than financing the healthcare of 320 million people.

    Lastly, there are other important variables that contribute to America's relatively high healthcare costs, as I've already demonstrated. Addressing these problems would be much easier and far more effective than trying to push through a universal healthcare system. Simply improving the average American diet and encouraging more exercise would likely decrease our healthcare costs by many billions of dollars every year. Why not try that first before we attempt a major and controversial overhaul of our entire healthcare system?
    Power always thinks it has a great soul, and vast views, beyond the comprehension of the weak. And that it is doing God service when it is violating all His laws.
    --John Adams

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Ethereal For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (05-26-2017)

  8. #16
    Points: 30,501, Level: 42
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 549
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Docthehun's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    210303
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    6,881
    Points
    30,501
    Level
    42
    Thanks Given
    12,998
    Thanked 4,497x in 2,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    Doc, my old friend, where's the constitutional basis for it? There's many good (or bad) things that we could or might do that sound good but fall outside of the constitution. If the people want it, let's amend the constitution and guarantee the right to accessible healthcare.
    There would be no constitutional basis, I concur. The same could be said about much of our benefits, strictly speaking. I would go back to and old saying; "An army runs on it's stomach." In a sense, that applies to all of us and stretches beyond the notion of food. The Army tries it's best to provide food, shelter, clothing, tools and education. All those things in tandem are what maintains our World standing.

    Worry most about the least among us. I believe that's exactly how you and I were raised. Was it not?

  9. #17

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Docthehun View Post
    There would be no constitutional basis, I concur. The same could be said about much of our benefits, strictly speaking. I would go back to and old saying; "An army runs on it's stomach." In a sense, that applies to all of us and stretches beyond the notion of food. The Army tries it's best to provide food, shelter, clothing, tools and education. All those things in tandem are what maintains our World standing.
    You are correct but we have to maintain our status of being a society of laws. The constitution protects the individual from the centralized government. Hence, the defined powers etc. The debate over whether other benefits are constitutional has been lost doesn't justify adding other additional unconstitutional structures. If we want to guarantee this as a right (and maybe we do), then we should put it in our structural document, IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Docthehun View Post
    Worry most about the least among us. I believe that's exactly how you and I were raised. Was it not?
    It truly is and I have tried to live my life that way. Isn't that the age old debate of compassion versus compulsion? Should my compassion lead to someone else's compulsion, absent a constitutional structural requirement? I don't know.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Docthehun (05-26-2017)

  11. #18
    Points: 23,309, Level: 37
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,041
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    William's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85960
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,928
    Points
    23,309
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    2,803
    Thanked 2,818x in 1,689 Posts
    Mentioned
    298 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Since what you pay is taken little by little and hardly noticed, and you don't pay at the pump, why does this not lead to overuse and abuse, sending costs skyrocketing? --Basically the same argument as the OP, government policies have lead to unhealthy people who need and demand more health care, sending costs skyrocketing.
    Maybe, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Australia has had this system for at least the past 50 years - costs have not skyrocketed, the standard of healthcare has been judged by the WHO as better than yours, and the country has not gone broke. Perhaps because the system allows medical practitioners to make a good living, and the system also allows for collective bargaining with people like the big drug companies. Like if you are buying for a whole nation, it gives you pretty good price leverage. No system is perfect, and I'm not saying the Aussie system is, but it is better than any system which requires you to have money before you receive health care.
    Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
    for a glow worm's never glum,
    'cause how can you be grumpy
    when the sun shines out your bum!

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to William For This Useful Post:

    Docthehun (05-26-2017)

  13. #19
    Points: 23,309, Level: 37
    Level completed: 14%, Points required for next Level: 1,041
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    William's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    85960
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    3,928
    Points
    23,309
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    2,803
    Thanked 2,818x in 1,689 Posts
    Mentioned
    298 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Here's one reason why: Lots of Americans like their private health insurance.



    Another reason why: The US government is corrupt and heavily influenced by corporate lobbying, as evidenced by their promotion of excess sugar consumption. To entrust them with financing America's healthcare is kind of like asking a fox to guard your hen-house.

    Yet another reason why: The USA's population is several times larger than countries with "universal healthcare", making issues of scale and efficiency unavoidable. Put another way, financing the healthcare of 24 million people is much different than financing the healthcare of 320 million people.

    Lastly, there are other important variables that contribute to America's relatively high healthcare costs, as I've already demonstrated. Addressing these problems would be much easier and far more effective than trying to push through a universal healthcare system. Simply improving the average American diet and encouraging more exercise would likely decrease our healthcare costs by many billions of dollars every year. Why not try that first before we attempt a major and controversial overhaul of our entire healthcare system?
    I'm sorry, but you are missing the point. Nothing need change in your health care system, except the way the doctors and hospitals are paid. The system stays the same - just the leeches in the insurance companies get the boot. Have a look at the tallest buildings in any major city - they are the insurance companies. Where do you think all that money comes from? A single payer system does away with all that profiteering.
    Oh, I wish I were a glow worm,
    for a glow worm's never glum,
    'cause how can you be grumpy
    when the sun shines out your bum!

  14. #20
    Points: 30,501, Level: 42
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 549
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Docthehun's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    210303
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    6,881
    Points
    30,501
    Level
    42
    Thanks Given
    12,998
    Thanked 4,497x in 2,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    You are correct but we have to maintain our status of being a society of laws. The constitution protects the individual from the centralized government. Hence, the defined powers etc. The debate over whether other benefits are constitutional has been lost doesn't justify adding other additional unconstitutional structures. If we want to guarantee this as a right (and maybe we do), then we should put it in our structural document, IMHO.



    It truly is and I have tried to live my life that way. Isn't that the age old debate of compassion versus compulsion? Should my compassion lead to someone else's compulsion, absent a constitutional structural requirement? I don't know.
    I suspect you and I would agree, that at the end of our journey neither of us would pull out a copy of our Constitution as justification for any of our actions or inactions. In the end, it was either right, or not.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Docthehun For This Useful Post:

    William (05-26-2017)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts