Interesting article: Is free market health care possible?

[ruralsurg4now]

Yeah, but if you claim that forcing doctors to provide care is slavery, then you weaken your argument because people believe that you're minimizing real slavery.

Sure, but that's their problem, not mine. Because even if they don't like to hear it, that's what they are advocating.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Rural surg, do you actually actively refuse patients? I'd imagine you don't though.

I don't because I can't because of what I explained about how it's slavery. If I could, I would. And so would you.

 

[rain4venus]

Sure, but that's their problem, not mine. Because even if they don't like to hear it, that's what they are advocating.

Nice job reading the rest of my post. I explained why it is your problem, and even more important to me, why your use of divisive language is *my* problem. Because it makes the average person who considers "is healthcare a human right?" to be a good question believe that all people who think healthcare is not a right are douches who compare it to slavery.

If the goods or services you provide are a right, then the fruits of your labor are owned not by you, but by someone else. This is a bad thing. Under real slavery, the fruits of your labor AND your body are owned not by you, but by someone else. This is much worse.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

If the goods or services you provide are a right, then the fruits of your labor are owned not by you, but by someone else. This is a bad thing. Under real slavery, the fruits of your labor AND your body are owned not by you, but by someone else. This is much worse.

But they DO own your body because if it's a right, then you cannot deny anyone anywhere at any time your labor. True? Yep. So even though it's not slavery like people are whipping you out in the fields, it's slavery like "if you don't do what I say, then I'll just prevent you from practicing and then you'll be broke and then what?" Forced servitude is forced servitude whether people like it or not. Sorry if the weak-heads can't accept that, but I daresay if I burst into their workplace and did the same thing that is being done to physicians, they'd all start brandishing guns.

 

[KnuxNole]

Initially, I won't. I would fire patients who break controlled drug contracts. One of the hardest things to see so far are people who abuse pain meds(they come in already on lortabs, Norcos and Percocet) and anxiety patients on Klonopin who refuse to see a psychologist or psychiatrist and prefers a band aid for life.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Initially, I won't.

But you don't have a choice. You're a resident, or at least your status states that. Plus, I can argue (not that I actually believe this, but just as a devil's advocate) that if you fire a patient for any reason, all you're doing is abandoning them. What if every doctor fires them? Then you've violated their human rights! Time to go to jail!

 

[KnuxNole]

Right, firing is for the very very tiny percentage. I have no issues seeing 99% of people anyway. And yea, even on the odd chance I don't wanna see certain people, I have to. But I don't care if patients are on Medicaid or have no insurance. That is not an issue at all for me. In fact, almost all the patients I see are nice and pleasant

 

[histidine]

But you don't have a choice. You're a resident, or at least your status states that. Plus, I can argue (not that I actually believe this, but just as a devil's advocate) that if you fire a patient for any reason, all you're doing is abandoning them. What if every doctor fires them? Then you've violated their human rights! Time to go to jail!

Actually, if healthcare is a right, then people support slavery. Liberals try to get around that by saying "oh, well, I think doctors should be paid," but that's irrelevant. In actuality, the "payment" is part of the slavery because the government decides what you get paid by controlling reimbursement. Meanwhile, by accepting the payment, you are then forced to treat any and everyone. Oh, and you can't turn down the payment and continue practicing, from a practical standpoint. But it's all "voluntary," in the eyes of the left, wink wink. Simultaneously, the reimbursements constantly decrease while the patient load increases ...but you're still getting paid, so it's still not slavery! I mean, yes, we force you to do work that you don't want to do for people who don't pay for it, but that's free enterprise, from their high-brow, intellectual way of looking at things.

Damn ruralsurg. Life is tough for you - I know. I grew up in a household with a surgeon parent. It was rough...it took 10 years for them to pay off their mortgage...on our 4 million dollar oceanfront house. It wasn't until I was 18 and away from college that my parents could afford their second house. Since then, reimbursements have dropped, and we were forced to invest in condos (in addition to the houses we already own). While some of my parent's friends in finance and business drive Ferraris and Lambos, we're stuck with Porsches and Mercs.

Physicians. Basically slaves.

 

[rain4venus]

But they DO own your body because if it's a right, then you cannot deny anyone anywhere at any time your labor. True? Yep. So even though it's not slavery like people are whipping you out in the fields, it's slavery like "if you don't do what I say, then I'll just prevent you from practicing and then you'll be broke and then what?" Forced servitude is forced servitude whether people like it or not. Sorry if the weak-heads can't accept that, but I daresay if I burst into their workplace and did the same thing that is being done to physicians, they'd all start brandishing guns.

Oh you don't care if most of the people who vote and therefore have some say in the policies we institute as a nation think healthcare is a right? Cool then, carry on. Good luck once healthcare is legally established as a right (it's not yet - not at all) because people like you scared off all the people trying to decide if it's a right or not.

 

[rain4venus]

Damn ruralsurg. Life is tough for you - I know. I grew up in a household with a surgeon parent. It was rough...it took 10 years for them to pay off their mortgage...on our 4 million dollar oceanfront house. It wasn't until I was 18 and away from college that my parents could afford their second house. Since then, reimbursements have dropped, and we were forced to invest in condos (in addition to the houses we already own). While some of my parent's friends in finance and business drive Ferraris and Lambos, we're stuck with Porsches and Mercs.

Physicians. Basically slaves.

The point is that if healthcare is a right, a doctor must provide as much care as demanded of him, whether he is to be paid or not. Right now, there's a ton of money in healthcare, so doctors get paid very well. But there's no guarantee that will last. If something happens that doesn't allow us to spend nearly as much on healthcare, physician pay will plummet, but if healthcare is a right, someone trained in medicine is still obligated to practice and provide care to anyone who requests it.

 

[askamsky51]

Didn't even bother to read. The title started off with political bias--no possible way it's objective.

 

[BlueLabel]

Didn't even bother to read. The title started off with political bias--no possible way it's objective.

The title of the post or the title of the article? Either way thanks for your valuable insight bro please share more of your fascinating opinions with us!!!!11

 

[dorian baltar]

If you look at some of the price points mentioned in that article you'll see something really interesting about 'free market healthcare': it's tremendously expensive. Insurance companies, by virtue of the fact that they represent millions of patients, are able to negotiate lower rates of reimbursement for their clients. To give you a purely anecdotal example, my father was recently admitted to the hospital for 3 days for an acute pancreatitis. The total cost of his visit was a little over $25,000, yet his insurance company only paid the hospital around $5,000. That's roughly an 80% discount on what the hospital would've charged him if he was paying out of pocket. Why is it so much more expensive if you pay for your healthcare in cash? Because you, the consumer, have no leverage. Combined with the circumstances outlined in the Arrow article, it's virtually impossible for you to pay a fair price for your healthcare needs.

Look at these prices and compare to what your father paid at a conventional/traditional hospital.
http://www.surgerycenterok.com/

 

[SunsFun]

You make some good points. However, society is still not entitled to the labor of police or firefighters even though they are considered public servants. And physicians as a group are not public servants. As for disproportional resource consumption, could you provide more context?

Also, I agree that we are all in this together. That being said, an individual still has no right to compel another individual to perform labor... because that would be slavery.

The fact that police and firefighters are public servants while doctors are not in America is a historical accident. There is nothing that is inherently unique in the idea that doctors are public servants for many developed societies. Since I assume you don't consider all public servants slaves, doctors being public servants would also not be slaves, right?

The point about environmental resources is carbon footprint. The rich on average consume those resources much more aggressively then poor. Ironically they also manage to locate most of the hazardous waste sites (often not intentionally but still) on the territory where minorities and poor people live. Double whammy.

 

[SunsFun]

Do you have a link to your data? I would like to read it.
As far as the free-market goes, a physician-run facility charged approximately $5,800 for a surgical procedure, while an identical procedure at a for-profit hospital garnered a bill that totaled over $33,000.

Here is the article and the excuse:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/15/the-obamacare-revolt-oklahoma-doctors-fi/singlepage

I did link one article about this stuff in earlier threads but all the information I am sharing here can be found in Healthcare Handbook. I am on my phone now but once I am on my laptop, I can look it up for you.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Oh you don't care if most of the people who vote and therefore have some say in the policies we institute as a nation think healthcare is a right? Cool then, carry on. Good luck once healthcare is legally established as a right (it's not yet - not at all) because people like you scared off all the people trying to decide if it's a right or not.

Not really, because they get what they vote for. So you see now that everyone is "discovering" that what was said by Republicans about Obamacare is true, they're horrified. Too bad. That's punishment for ignorance.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Damn ruralsurg. Life is tough for you - I know. I grew up in a household with a surgeon parent. It was rough...it took 10 years for them to pay off their mortgage...on our 4 million dollar oceanfront house. It wasn't until I was 18 and away from college that my parents could afford their second house. Since then, reimbursements have dropped, and we were forced to invest in condos (in addition to the houses we already own). While some of my parent's friends in finance and business drive Ferraris and Lambos, we're stuck with Porsches and Mercs.

Physicians. Basically slaves.

That's great. Now go home and tell your dad that you decided that it was his moral imperitive to take care of everyone and that, oh, by the way, reimbursements are going to continue to drop, courtesy of you. Enjoy getting kicked in the head by your own father.

Oh, and if you make it to med school, remember to go into primary care, not some fancy specialty where they have good hours and high pay. Don't duck your moral imperitive, kid.

P.S. By the way, this is common thinking. A lot of kids of hard-working people turn out liberal because they get all emo and angsty about how good they had it. Really, their parents should have done us all a favor and raised them in some shack and parcelled out food to them, so that we wouldn't have to hear their whining years later.

Oh, one other thing that this brilliant guy doesn't know. Reimbursements have dropped quite dramatically. Go home and ask your dad his pay now versus twenty years ago. And before you do, block off a few hours because he'll be quite detailed about how much it's dropped. Don't forget to tell him that you support that. Oh, and get ready to pay for your own school because I presume he'll write you out of his will.

 

[Pattycake25]

Geez, this post is just brilliant. Do you eat republican rhetoric for breakfast, lunch, and dinner or something?

I'd like to see an example of a universal health care system that has collapsed under your reasoning.

You bring up a good point with regards to healthcare as a right vs. a privilege. I guess it does come down to an ideology debate. Do tell me though, why should access to healthcare be a privilege and not a right?

Gotta keep those plebs on the hamster wheel! Right, ruralsurg? We wouldn't them to start expecting more than just the scraps thrown off the table by the elite, now would we?

 

[NickNaylor]

Damn ruralsurg. Life is tough for you - I know. I grew up in a household with a surgeon parent. It was rough...it took 10 years for them to pay off their mortgage...on our 4 million dollar oceanfront house. It wasn't until I was 18 and away from college that my parents could afford their second house. Since then, reimbursements have dropped, and we were forced to invest in condos (in addition to the houses we already own). While some of my parent's friends in finance and business drive Ferraris and Lambos, we're stuck with Porsches and Mercs.

Physicians. Basically slaves.

Do you think making a caricature of the opposing argument is effective? Or...?

 

[BlueLabel]

Do you think making a caricature of the opposing argument is effective? Or...?

I dunno why don't you ask Jonathan Swift?

 

[dorian baltar]

The fact that police and firefighters are public servants while doctors are not in America is a historical accident. There is nothing that is inherently unique in the idea that doctors are public servants for many developed societies. Since I assume you don't consider all public servants slaves, doctors being public servants would also not be slaves, right?

The point about environmental resources is carbon footprint. The rich on average consume those resources much more aggressively then poor. Ironically they also manage to locate most of the hazardous waste sites (often not intentionally but still) on the territory where minorities and poor people live. Double whammy.

Trek19 said that despite police and firefighters being public servants, it does not entitle people to their labor. How does a doctor being a public servant have any relevance to the discussion of whether healthcare is a right?
If all on duty firefighters are occupied and a house is on fire, does the owner have the right for off duty firefighters to help him or her?
Similarly, if I have an emergency and all on duty cops are occupied, do people have the right to force off duty cops to help them?
Do people have the right to make a doctor that isn't on call help them and possibly help them for free if the person cannot pay?
I say no. Public servant or not, I have no right to demand labor from another.
Now, all three people chose a life of service, so WILL they help?
Likely, yes, but that does not mean they MUST.
People do not magically lose rights when they learn to perform certain jobs. It is my decision to learn the skills needed to help people as a doctor. If I work too much, I will work less. If I make too little, I will charge more. If that is illegal, I am not free. If I make enough, I will charge zero for those who need help and cannot pay, by the way.
It baffles me how some people think that everyone has a right to something that someone must work quite hard to provide.
Other posters have already asked the questions that reveal the flaws inherent in the idea that healthcare is a right. The two main ones are, what happens when there aren't enough doctors and what happens when there is not enough money to pay the doctors.
A much better solution is to trust that the people who want to be doctors for the right reasons (helping people) get into medical school and eventually do what they want (helping people) and trust in adcoms to keep out the money grubbing wannabe doctors that don't want the career for the right reason (helping people).

 

[NickNaylor]

I dunno why don't you ask Jonathan Swift?

I don't think he's being satirical... though I'll admit that I didn't look through the entire thread.

 

[SunsFun]

Trek19 said that despite police and firefighters being public servants, it does not entitle people to their labor. How does a doctor being a public servant have any relevance to the discussion of whether healthcare is a right?
If all on duty firefighters are occupied and a house is on fire, does the owner have the right for off duty firefighters to help him or her?
Similarly, if I have an emergency and all on duty cops are occupied, do people have the right to force off duty cops to help them?
Do people have the right to make a doctor that isn't on call help them and possibly help them for free if the person cannot pay?
I say no. Public servant or not, I have no right to demand labor from another.
Now, all three people chose a life of service, so WILL they help?
Likely, yes, but that does not mean they MUST.
People do not magically lose rights when they learn to perform certain jobs. It is my decision to learn the skills needed to help people as a doctor. If I work too much, I will work less. If I make too little, I will charge more. If that is illegal, I am not free. If I make enough, I will charge zero for those who need help and cannot pay, by the way.
It baffles me how some people think that everyone has a right to something that someone must work quite hard to provide.
Other posters have already asked the questions that reveal the flaws inherent in the idea that healthcare is a right. The two main ones are, what happens when there aren't enough doctors and what happens when there is not enough money to pay the doctors.
A much better solution is to trust that the people who want to be doctors for the right reasons (helping people) get into medical school and eventually do what they want (helping people) and trust in adcoms to keep out the money grubbing wannabe doctors that don't want the career for the right reason (helping people).

Being public servant is relevant because that is what we consider to be a right. Everyone in a our society has a right to police protection and that what makes police officers public servants. Same logic applies to teachers. They can't refuse to teach students who they get. But that doesn't mean that if they see a homeless kid on the street who wants to learn math they are obligated to bring that kid to their classroom. Same logic can (and should) theoretically apply to doctors. Nobody is forcing them to drop everything and service every person with a problem. That's not what we mean when we advocate for healthcare as a right. The idea here is that regardless of income, class, race, education, gender an individual shouldn't have any impediments of obtaining necessary care when it is freely available to those who are able to pay for it. Your idea of what a "right" is in this context is very different from mine.

 

[BlueLabel]

Do people have the right to make a doctor that isn't on call help them and possibly help them for free if the person cannot pay?
I say no. Public servant or not, I have no right to demand labor from another.
Now, all three people chose a life of service, so WILL they help?
Likely, yes, but that does not mean they MUST.
People do not magically lose rights when they learn to perform certain jobs.

You've gotta be very careful with this. There is not categorical "duty to rescue" but when it comes to medical practitioners the courts are often willing to impose one with even very slightly justifying factors. I don't believe that failing to carry out a duty to rescue can result in criminal charges but it can definitely make you liable in civil court.

http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/...ical practitioner and the duty to rescue_.pdf (this is an Aussie link but as far as I know common law countries have similar approaches to this concept)

"A factor that was relevant in the decision to impose a duty to assist on the doctor, and which is also of
significance in itself in terms ofa doctor's legal obligations, is the fact that the Act regulating medical
professionals imposes an obligation on doctors to assist. Section 36(1 )(1) of the Medical Practice Act 1992
(NSW) states that unsatisfactory professional conduct includes "(r)efusing or failing, without reasonable cause,
to attend (within a reasonable time after being requested to do so) on a person for the purpose of rendering
professional services in the capacity of a registered medical practitioner in any case where the practitioner has
reasonable cause to believe that the person is in need of urgent attention by a registered medical practitioner,
unless the practitioner has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that another registered medical practitioner
attends instead within a reasonable time."

I realize this isn't exactly what you were responding to before, but hopefully this illustrates that the question of whether or not medical practitioners have a duty to rescue is actually separate from the ongoing debate about healthcare reform and healthcare as a right vs. privilege.

 

[SunsFun]

The point is that if healthcare is a right, a doctor must provide as much care as demanded of him, whether he is to be paid or not. Right now, there's a ton of money in healthcare, so doctors get paid very well. But there's no guarantee that will last. If something happens that doesn't allow us to spend nearly as much on healthcare, physician pay will plummet, but if healthcare is a right, someone trained in medicine is still obligated to practice and provide care to anyone who requests it.

I don't think when people talk about healthcare being a right they mean it in a sense that doctors are obligated to provide it no matter what. It is about a system that allows maximum equitable access to healthcare for everyone without imposing undue burdens on the poor. An individual doctor can still do whatever he wants.

Look, VA system of care is basically a public service for veterans. So are the VA employees slaves to veterans? Are they obligated to service every single veteran at all times and cannot work anywhere else? What people (at least me) who support notion of healthcare as a right suggest is having a system similar to VA but for everyone in the US.

 

[dorian baltar]

That's not what we mean when we advocate for healthcare as a right. The idea here is that regardless of income, class, race, education, gender an individual shouldn't have any impediments of obtaining necessary care when it is freely available to those who are able to pay for it. Your idea of what a "right" is in this context is very different from mine.

Could you elaborate on that, because that doesn't seem logically consistent to me.
Yes, our ideas of rights are very different.
I believe people have negative rights, but not positive rights. For example, I have the right to my property and the right of free speech [necessitating inaction by someone else (thief, censor)]. You believe everyone has the right to healthcare (necessitating the action of a healthcare provider).
By the way, the "right" to police protection is another positive right. I don't believe I have that right, however, having police protection enables me to maintain my right of freedom from crime. The police protection is a means to protect the right that I actually have and maintain an orderly society. Rights are things that cannot be eliminated. What if all the police die, move away, or are non-existent for some other reason? I can no longer have my right to police protection, because there is no one to provide it. However, my right to free speech is intrinsic. It does not compel another to action.
Perhaps you, and everyone else who thinks that healthcare is a right have a must looser definition of what a right is. That would explain a lot.
I just don't see how everyone can have a right to healthcare when that would necessitate a doctor being available for everyone who needs care whenever they need it, regardless of ability to pay. It's impossible for that to be realized without severely curtailing the rights of doctors.

 

[dorian baltar]

I don't think when people talk about healthcare being a right they mean it in a sense that doctors are obligated to provide it no matter what. It is about a system that allows maximum equitable access to healthcare for everyone without imposing undue burdens on the poor. An individual doctor can still do whatever he wants.

Look, VA system of care is basically a public service for veterans. So are the VA employees slaves to veterans? Are they obligated to service every single veteran at all times and cannot work anywhere else? What people (at least me) who support notion of healthcare as a right suggest is having a system similar to VA but for everyone in the US.

The VA system is not basically a public service for veterans, it is one of the benefits given for service in the military. It's like the benefit of health insurance that I receive from my employer.

 

[SunsFun]

Do we curtail the rights of police officers, post office workers, firefighters, school teachers? Why is it difficult for you to imagine same thing happening with doctors?

It's not individual thing. Me, me, me here is irrelevant. It is about redesigning the system to create access. It's not about what individual doctor is obligated to do because in the end of the day being a doctor is a job. You don't like to see everyone - go into private practice. Nobody will prohibit not working for the government. Again, imagine VA system that served everyone.

 

[SunsFun]

The VA system is not basically a public service for veterans, it is one of the benefits given for service in the military. It's like the benefit of health insurance that I receive from my employer.

That doesn't change my argument at all though. Who cares why it was given in the first place here? The point is that it is there and the employees are not slaves. We were talking about doctors who work there anyway and that has nothing to so with reasons VA exists and who it serves.

 

[dorian baltar]

You've gotta be very careful with this. There is not categorical "duty to rescue" but when it comes to medical practitioners the courts are often willing to impose one with even very slightly justifying factors. I don't believe that failing to carry out a duty to rescue can result in criminal charges but it can definitely make you liable in civil court.

http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/media/373165/article by gw and alw _ medical practitioner and the duty to rescue_.pdf (this is an Aussie link but as far as I know common law countries have similar approaches to this concept)

"A factor that was relevant in the decision to impose a duty to assist on the doctor, and which is also of
significance in itself in terms ofa doctor's legal obligations, is the fact that the Act regulating medical
professionals imposes an obligation on doctors to assist. Section 36(1 )(1) of the Medical Practice Act 1992
(NSW) states that unsatisfactory professional conduct includes "(r)efusing or failing, without reasonable cause,
to attend (within a reasonable time after being requested to do so) on a person for the purpose of rendering
professional services in the capacity of a registered medical practitioner in any case where the practitioner has
reasonable cause to believe that the person is in need of urgent attention by a registered medical practitioner,
unless the practitioner has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that another registered medical practitioner
attends instead within a reasonable time."

I realize this isn't exactly what you were responding to before, but hopefully this illustrates that the question of whether or not medical practitioners have a duty to rescue is actually separate from the ongoing debate about healthcare reform and healthcare as a right vs. privilege.

I am almost certain there are laws like that in the US. I heard people at work talking about good Samaritan laws yesterday, so surely there are laws that compel doctors to help in situations like that.
I'm talking about moral obligations/duty. I recognize that legal duties are different (and they are not necessarily moral).
I recognize I have to live within the confines of the law (unless I want to have an unpleasant time), but I can still say the law is misguided or just plain wrong at times.

 

[dorian baltar]

That doesn't change my argument at all though. Who cares why it was given in the first place here? The point is that it is there and the employees are not slaves. We were talking about doctors who work there anyway and that has nothing to so with reasons VA exists and who it serves.

[deleted]
I read your post a few more times and think I see where you're coming from.
I will respond after considering for a few minutes.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Do we curtail the rights of police officers, post office workers, firefighters, school teachers? Why is it difficult for you to imagine same thing happening with doctors?

It's not individual thing. Me, me, me here is irrelevant. It is about redesigning the system to create access. It's not about what individual doctor is obligated to do because in the end of the day being a doctor is a job. You don't like to see everyone - go into private practice. Nobody will prohibit not working for the government. Again, imagine VA system that served everyone.

This is a poor argument, since nobody ever argues that you have the right to any of those professions. In fact, governments have no problem telling you that, for example, your police services are being cut and you're SOL. In contrast, the current argument is that you're entitled to healthcare, which is the total opposite. When you say we are just "redesigning the system to create access," that's just a nice way of saying that you're taking control of the healthcare industry and all of the people who work in it and making them do what you want.

As proof, realize that until relatively recently, everyone believed that healthcare was NOT a right and expected people to carry at least some form of insurance (unsubsidized) and had no issue with people getting less care if they didn't pay, such as having to go to some free clinic somewhere randomly. And yet within a few decades, as usual, liberals have indoctrinated everyone into believing that everyone has always believed that healthcare was a right. They'd make excellent concentration camp guards.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Owning a firearm is a literally spelt out in the Constitution as a right but you can't go to a gun store, point to a shotgun and demand it free of charge.

The same would go for healthcare.

 

[KnuxNole]

Just out of curiousity, if healthcare is simply a privilege, what happens to people that can't afford life saving surgeries? Of course, there are safety net hospitals they can go to...but if those don't take the poor, how can they ever get care?

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Owning a firearm is a literally spelt out in the Constitution as a right but you can't go to a gun store, point to a shotgun and demand it free of charge.

The same would go for healthcare.

That doesn't even make sense. You have the right to bear arms (for defense), nobody said that you have the right to steal.

 

[dorian baltar]

That doesn't even make sense. You have the right to bear arms (for defense), nobody said that you have the right to steal.

Neither did he?

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Just out of curiousity, if healthcare is simply a privilege, what happens to people that can't afford life saving surgeries? Of course, there are safety net hospitals they can go to...but if those don't take the poor, how can they ever get care?

They either get charitable care or else they're SOL. And before you protest, understand that the way it is right now, the vast majority of healthcare dollars are spent in the final month of someone's life. In other words, we spend most of the money for practically no purpose other than to make people feel good. Now, that doesn't mean I'm for euthenasia or death panels. Those are instituted by the government as ways to control expenditures once they make healthcare a right. I believe you can do whatever you want ...you just need to pay for it. So if some billionaire wants to make himself broke keeping someone alive in the ICU forever, that's fine with me. If some indigent person wants to make me broke keeping himself alive in the ICU forever, the first I'm doing is accidentally tripping over the power cord.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Oh, and if you think getting charitable care will be difficult, why ...don't we have all of these idealistic liberal doctors-to-be who fully believe that healthcare is a right? Surely they would not mind volunteering some of their time to the indigent, right?

 

[KnuxNole]

First of all, I've never met someone who replies as lightning fast as you do! Unless SDN has a new sound alert feature or mobile push notifications.

Thankfully there are services for the indigent and poor who can easily get care with Medicaid or in safety net hospitals.


Idk, I'm never involved in politics and am simply trying to live a happy life while working in a profession which is far from being a slave haha. Getting wrapped up in obamacare talk or these discussions aren't interesting, but can be occasionally enlightening.

 

[dorian baltar]

That doesn't change my argument at all though. Who cares why it was given in the first place here? The point is that it is there and the employees are not slaves. We were talking about doctors who work there anyway and that has nothing to so with reasons VA exists and who it serves.

It has a lot to do with why it exists. As I said before, veterans do not have the VA just because they exist, they have it because it is a part of the benefits package for entering the military. Veterans perform a VERY important service and the government correctly provided this benefit in order to get more people to join the military and provide a decent level of compensation for veterans who already joined.
We are discussing two different but related issues.
1) Doctors Are or Are Not Slaves because the VA Provides "Free" Healthcare to Veterans
First, I don't know why we went back to using slaves to describe the condition of doctors in an area in which healthcare is a right. Indentured servant is a little better, since like an indentured servant the doctor him or herself is not owned, only the labor.
As far as I know, the employees of the VA are being paid, can choose their hours (to an extent), and are pretty much exactly like the employees of any other hospital. This is the situation under normal operating conditions. Under these conditions, the truth of whether VA employees are indentured servants or not is hidden. We need to consider what happens in the event of insufficient funds or insufficient employees to meet demand to determine whether the doctors are slaves. If the doctors are forced to work longer hours without compensation or work for less money, then they are actually indentured servants (ISs). Instead, if the government hires more doctors, pays more, gives vacation later, or the doctors just work for less and for longer voluntarily, then they are not ISs.
2) Healthcare is a Right (original, main issue)
Your last post made no statement about this. Again, because the veterans don't have a right to healthcare, they were just given free healthcare through the VA as a benefit. What matters is they are getting free healthcare, not a right to healthcare. You are probably thinking, "There is no practical difference between those two things!" Well actually there is. The former is paying for a doctor to take care of the veteran. The latter is being able to demand care from a doctor no matter what.

 

[Reckoner]

This is a poor argument, since nobody ever argues that you have the right to any of those professions. In fact, governments have no problem telling you that, for example, your police services are being cut and you're SOL. In contrast, the current argument is that you're entitled to healthcare, which is the total opposite. When you say we are just "redesigning the system to create access," that's just a nice way of saying that you're taking control of the healthcare industry and all of the people who work in it and making them do what you want.

As proof, realize that until relatively recently, everyone believed that healthcare was NOT a right and expected people to carry at least some form of insurance (unsubsidized) and had no issue with people getting less care if they didn't pay, such as having to go to some free clinic somewhere randomly. And yet within a few decades, as usual, liberals have indoctrinated everyone into believing that everyone has always believed that healthcare was a right. They'd make excellent concentration camp guards.

Out of curiosity, do you support separating health insurance from employment and ending that particular form of subsidization? (Tax exemption on employer provided insurance)

 

[Goucher2013]

That's a rather infantile way of looking at the issue. You can literally post this regardless of even if we have totally free and universal healthcare. If anyone doesn't get anything, then you post "LET THEM DIE!!" and some co-socialist will like it. Your position is one that is taken by people who are the least intellectual. Shall I, when you work as a physician, stand outside your office and, whenever you go home for the day, start shouting "CLOSING ALREADY?? LET THEM DIE!!"? Probably.

This is why college kids do lousy at debates. Your understanding of reasoning is "post a funny gif lawl and tehn I winz."

 

[SunsFun]

It has a lot to do with why it exists. As I said before, veterans do not have the VA just because they exist, they have it because it is a part of the benefits package for entering the military. Veterans perform a VERY important service and the government correctly provided this benefit in order to get more people to join the military and provide a decent level of compensation for veterans who already joined.
We are discussing two different but related issues.
1) Doctors Are or Are Not Slaves because the VA Provides "Free" Healthcare to Veterans
First, I don't know why we went back to using slaves to describe the condition of doctors in an area in which healthcare is a right. Indentured servant is a little better, since like an indentured servant the doctor him or herself is not owned, only the labor.
As far as I know, the employees of the VA are being paid, can choose their hours (to an extent), and are pretty much exactly like the employees of any other hospital. This is the situation under normal operating conditions. Under these conditions, the truth of whether VA employees are indentured servants or not is hidden. We need to consider what happens in the event of insufficient funds or insufficient employees to meet demand to determine whether the doctors are slaves. If the doctors are forced to work longer hours without compensation or work for less money, then they are actually indentured servants (ISs). Instead, if the government hires more doctors, pays more, gives vacation later, or the doctors just work for less and for longer voluntarily, then they are not ISs.
2) Healthcare is a Right (original, main issue)
Your last post made no statement about this. Again, because the veterans don't have a right to healthcare, they were just given free healthcare through the VA as a benefit. What matters is they are getting free healthcare, not a right to healthcare. You are probably thinking, "There is no practical difference between those two things!" Well actually there is. The former is paying for a doctor to take care of the veteran. The latter is being able to demand care from a doctor no matter what.

Sorry but I still don't see a practical difference here. To me it's all semantics. You just take government employees providing free healthcare benefits to a particular group of people and call it something else. If we extend this "benefit" to the rest of the population it is still basically doing the same thing. I mean you can argue whether other people have earned it or not but that really doesn't matter so much at all. Either way the employees at VA hospitals are paid and it is business as usual just on a bigger scale. I really don't care whether you call it a right or a benefit.

 

[dorian baltar]

First of all, I've never met someone who replies as lightning fast as you do! Unless SDN has a new sound alert feature or mobile push notifications.

Thankfully there are services for the indigent and poor who can easily get care with Medicaid or in safety net hospitals.

Idk, I'm never involved in politics and am simply trying to live a happy life while working in a profession which is far from being a slave haha. Getting wrapped up in obamacare talk or these discussions aren't interesting, but can be occasionally enlightening.

Maybe ruralsurg4now thinks he is a slave (I'm still not quite sure), but I, along with most people (I assume) who think that healthcare isn't a right do not think doctors are slaves/indentured servants (ISs). My concern is that if there is some crisis, how will our (my future) status change?
If the number of people who think like SunsFun increase, I fear that medicine will see more government intervention and doctors will increasingly be seen as healthcare providers, doing just another job, bound by ever growing numbers of regulations, rather than as an important part of the community who uses his or her knowledge to work with everyone and keep them as healthy as possible.
I am also concerned by the willingness of the government to provide benefits but not regulate them. Examples are food stamps and healthcare. People can buy almost anything they want that is "food" with food stamps. Any efforts to limit clearly unhealthy items like candy, cakes, energy drinks, etc. are met with extreme opposition. Healthcare is the same way. People receiving medicare and Medicaid should pretty much be forced to not smoke. It's just stupid to subsidize the care of people who are making terrible choices. If they want help from the government, the government should be allowed to establish some requirements; unfortunately, it seems like that will never happen.

 

[SunsFun]

This is a poor argument, since nobody ever argues that you have the right to any of those professions. In fact, governments have no problem telling you that, for example, your police services are being cut and you're SOL. In contrast, the current argument is that you're entitled to healthcare, which is the total opposite. When you say we are just "redesigning the system to create access," that's just a nice way of saying that you're taking control of the healthcare industry and all of the people who work in it and making them do what you want.

As proof, realize that until relatively recently, everyone believed that healthcare was NOT a right and expected people to carry at least some form of insurance (unsubsidized) and had no issue with people getting less care if they didn't pay, such as having to go to some free clinic somewhere randomly. And yet within a few decades, as usual, liberals have indoctrinated everyone into believing that everyone has always believed that healthcare was a right. They'd make excellent concentration camp guards.

I don't think it is about taking control of the entire industry. It is about creating a true public good. Nobody is going to be shutting down private practices and other hospitals. We have already had a century of experimentation by letting the healthcare develop sporadically as free market industry. It lead us to have the highest per capita spending with some of the lowest longevity and other benchmarks among developed countries. Pretty much every other developed country in Europe, Asia, etc has some sort of universal system in place to provide care to everyone. Doesn't that tell you that their way is a little better?

 

[SunsFun]

Maybe ruralsurg4now thinks he is a slave (I'm still not quite sure), but I, along with most people (I assume) who think that healthcare isn't a right do not think doctors are slaves/indentured servants (ISs). My concern is that if there is some crisis, how will our (my future) status change?
If the number of people who think like SunsFun increase, I fear that medicine will see more government intervention and doctors will increasingly be seen as healthcare providers, doing just another job, bound by ever growing numbers of regulations, rather than as an important part of the community who uses his or her knowledge to work with everyone and keep them as healthy as possible.
I am also concerned by the willingness of the government to provide benefits but not regulate them. Examples are food stamps and healthcare. People can buy almost anything they want that is "food" with food stamps. Any efforts to limit clearly unhealthy items like candy, cakes, energy drinks, etc. are met with extreme opposition. Healthcare is the same way. People receiving medicare and Medicaid should pretty much be forced to not smoke. It's just stupid to subsidize the care of people who are making terrible choices. If they want help from the government, the government should be allowed to establish some requirements; unfortunately, it seems like that will never happen.

"Important part of the community who uses his or her knowledge to work with EVERYONE to keep them as healthy as possible..." Who exactly are you talking about here? The applicants during interviews or the actual doctors?

 

[BlueLabel]

First of all, I've never met someone who replies as lightning fast as you do! Unless SDN has a new sound alert feature or mobile push notifications.

Thankfully there are services for the indigent and poor who can easily get care with Medicaid or in safety net hospitals.


Idk, I'm never involved in politics and am simply trying to live a happy life while working in a profession which is far from being a slave haha. Getting wrapped up in obamacare talk or these discussions aren't interesting, but can be occasionally enlightening.

Yup if you buy the $1.00 mobile app you can toggle push notifications. It's pretty kewl

 

[dorian baltar]

Sorry but I still don't see a practical difference here. To me it's all semantics. You just take government employees providing free healthcare benefits to a particular group of people and call it something else. If we extend this "benefit" to the rest of the population it is still basically doing the same thing. I mean you can argue whether other people have earned it or not but that really doesn't matter so much at all. Either way the employees at VA hospitals are paid and it is business as usual just on a bigger scale. I really don't care whether you call it a right or a benefit.

The military is a basic service of government. To keep the military running, we need soldiers. To get soldiers, the government offers benefits, just like any other company. Healthcare for veterans is a cost of the military.
It absolutely matters whether everyone else deserves it. What has the rest of the country done to deserve free healthcare? Exist?
Your latest post states that universal healthcare is a better way to go. That's obvious. But providing it through the government is not necessarily the answer. For example, how will smoking, lack of exercise, excessive drinking, poor eating habits, etc. be penalized? Many people will continue with their bad health habits and perhaps have even less reason to reevaluate their decisions if they are receiving free healthcare.
What free market system of healthcare did we have during the last 100 years?

 

[dorian baltar]

"Important part of the community who uses his or her knowledge to work with EVERYONE to keep them as healthy as possible..." Who exactly are you talking about here? The applicants during interviews or the actual doctors?

I assume you're asking about "everyone" to which you added emphasis. By "everyone" I mean everyone.
By "important part of the community" I mean doctors.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Getting wrapped up in obamacare talk or these discussions aren't interesting, but can be occasionally enlightening.

But it is interesting. I know lots of people who don't like getting involved in politics or thinking about it. That just leads to you having no say as to the direction of your profession (or country).