Magox Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 That lays out a pretty strong argument for the nationalization of the health system. No it doesn't umm... you cut the specialist pay while simultaneously increasing the primary care pay and the incentive to do a low paying fellowship for 2-5 years becomes much less. hence, more people choose primary care. if you look at any of the high quality, low cost single payer systems in the world, the discrepancy between specialist and primary care pay is much less. most have 50% or more of their docs practicing primary care. it's a key element. prestige is also directly effected by the pay differential. you are clearly aware of the emphasis put on earnings in determining ones value in this country. So you cut the specialist pay, which is what would happen under the Medicare-for-all plan and you cut the primary care physician pay through lower reimbursement rates but somehow the lost pay of the specialists results in higher pay for the primary care physicians who had their reimbursements cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 That lays out a pretty strong argument for the nationalization of the health system. The VA lays out a pretty strong argument against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 on the same note, i'm sick and tired of going to fund raisers for cancer patients so they can afford to live. firstly, they often still don't get enough help to afford to survive. second, it's immoral and we should all be profoundly shamed. but you put the power to decide peoples fate in the hands of c level execs that answer to shareholders and this is what you should expect.... Because this certainly wouldn't be happening with socialized medicine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) No it doesn't So you cut the specialist pay, which is what would happen under the Medicare-for-all plan and you cut the primary care physician pay through lower reimbursement rates but somehow the lost pay of the specialists results in higher pay for the primary care physicians who had their reimbursements cut? no. but you know what I wrote. if you believe i'm incorrect on that point, prove it. but don't misstate my position and argue against it. Because this certainly wouldn't be happening with socialized medicine? good lord, the tired death panel scare again. medicare just recently approved a code to charge (and be paid) for discussion of advance directives. that means I can do a visit just for that purpose and get paid for it. (I don't. I incorporate it in a wellness visit) it's aimed at improving reimbursement to primary care while addressing an important issue: end of life care. it makes perfect sense and is clearly appropriate. those that attempt to demonize it either don't understand the issue or are being disingenuous. Edited April 8, 2016 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 No it doesn't So you cut the specialist pay, which is what would happen under the Medicare-for-all plan and you cut the primary care physician pay through lower reimbursement rates but somehow the lost pay of the specialists results in higher pay for the primary care physicians who had their reimbursements cut? So medicare pays $550 for something the hospital sells to other insurances for $7500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 So medicare pays $550 for something the hospital sells to other insurances for $7500? Depends, sometimes that could be the case in others it could be much more on par with one another, which is why transparency would go a long way in reducing medical costs. no. but you know what I wrote. if you believe i'm incorrect on that point, prove it. but don't misstate my position and argue against it. It's not misstating, it's adding things that you either willfully omitted or didn't completely think through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Depends, sometimes that could be the case in others it could be much more on par with one another, which is why transparency would go a long way in reducing medical costs. I fail to see how "transparency" will fix the problem. Being able to see what a hospital charges for something to different providers is useless unless you penalize them for inequity. Which, again, leads back to some sort of governmental intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) I fail to see how "transparency" will fix the problem. Being able to see what a hospital charges for something to different providers is useless unless you penalize them for inequity. Which, again, leads back to some sort of governmental intervention. It will help fix the problem. And how do you fail to see it? There are many instances where you have one hospital that charges $4,000 for a colonoscopy only to find out that a nearby hospital less than 10 miles away charges 1/4 of that. If there was an online menu of medical services that could be found in a zip code search, it would empower patients and insurers to have more control where they could get these services done, which of course would breed even more competition. It's not that difficult of a concept. Edited April 8, 2016 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 It will help fix the problem. And how do you fail to see it? There are many instances where you have one hospital that charges $4,000 for a colonoscopy only to find out that a nearby hospital less than 10 miles away charges 1/4 of that. If there was an online menu of medical services that could be found in a zip code search, it would empower patients and insurers to have more control where they could get these services done, which of course would breed even more competition. It's not that difficult of a concept. It'd be more effective to put a hard cap on all costs healthcare related. Just MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 The two choices are to have healthcare people can't afford, or healthcare that isn't available. At least in the first scenario, you can look to charities or pretend to be an Illegal alien and pin the cost on the tax payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 The two choices are to have healthcare people can't afford, or healthcare that isn't available. At least in the first scenario, you can look to charities or pretend to be an Illegal alien and pin the cost on the tax payers. Like everything else in life, huzzah for that kind of situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 It'd be more effective to put a hard cap on all costs healthcare related. Just MO. Sure, if you believe in much longer waiting periods to have services performed (similar to the VA), healthcare procedures/services approved and denied by some bureaucrats and lower quality of care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Because this certainly wouldn't be happening with socialized medicine? People ought to have their end of life options determined in advance. Makes things easier and less complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 no. but you know what I wrote. if you believe i'm incorrect on that point, prove it. but don't misstate my position and argue against it. good lord, the tired death panel scare again. medicare just recently approved a code to charge (and be paid) for discussion of advance directives. that means I can do a visit just for that purpose and get paid for it. (I don't. I incorporate it in a wellness visit) it's aimed at improving reimbursement to primary care while addressing an important issue: end of life care. it makes perfect sense and is clearly appropriate. those that attempt to demonize it either don't understand the issue or are being disingenuous. It's not a scare, but a reality. Just because you are going to socialize medical care doesn't mean you eliminate the costs. And if history is a guide, socializing anything will lead to higher, not lower costs and less accountability. So the person who needs a fund raising drive to cover his medical costs in the current regime will need a fund raising drive to get him into a facility earlier than his scheduled time that was rationed to him. As with anything socialized, get ready for a worse outcome for the large majority in your quest to help a small minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 It's not a scare, but a reality. Just because you are going to socialize medical care doesn't mean you eliminate the costs. And if history is a guide, socializing anything will lead to higher, not lower costs and less accountability. So the person who needs a fund raising drive to cover his medical costs in the current regime will need a fund raising drive to get him into a facility earlier than his scheduled time that was rationed to him. As with anything socialized, get ready for a worse outcome for the large majority in your quest to help a small minority. Yes and it's not about lower costs. It's about the left providing another entitlement to millions and millions of voters to be paid or mostly paid by someone else while making it nearly impossible for the opposing party to get elected on an alternative platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Sure, if you believe in much longer waiting periods to have services performed (similar to the VA), healthcare procedures/services approved and denied by some bureaucrats and lower quality of care. Again, the choice is care you can't afford, or care you can't get. Either way, you're !@#$ed. I'd rather they go down with me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 So all the naysayers against a national HC system....how does your argument stack up against the demonstrable evidence of all the other national HC systems that exist already that are pretty much better than what we have in almost every metric? You are arguing with ghosts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 So all the naysayers against a national HC system....how does your argument stack up against the demonstrable evidence of all the other national HC systems that exist already that are pretty much better than what we have in almost every metric? You are arguing with ghosts.... Can you cite these existing national HC systems that are demonstrably better? Just stack up eight or nine of them. Begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Let me guess...the infant mortality and life expectancy rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Can you cite these existing national HC systems that are demonstrably better? Just stack up eight or nine of them. Begin. now, now ................he did say "pretty much"......and......"almost every" so he doesn't really have to prove anything. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts