Why are most doctors against healthcare reform?

Started by uclaussr
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
In a word, uncertainty. People prefer the status quo. A lot of docs feel they got hosed by managed care and capitation schemes back in the 90's, and the current reform law is just the same song in a different decade.

Besides, it's a lot more fun to complain than it is to study the issue in depth or even take some initiative regarding the reform effort itself.

You may be interested in the events surrounding the implementation of Canada's system in the 1960's. It was rather tumultuous.

If there's anything to be learned from history, it's this. People will complain and will complain and will complain some more about anything. The same person will complain about two completely opposite things you do.

However, what remains the same through time is that few of those who complain will ever offer up an alternative. It's not that surprising--ideas are hard to come by and easy to criticize. Nonetheless, it is this unwillingness to genuinely engage in a debate focused on producing results rather than criticizing others that cripples our society and inhibits any real "reform" like we all claim to desire.

My point is that it's not that surprising when a politician/group decides "the hell with it, I'm doing this" because who can really blame then? Watching us constantly do nothing sucks even more.

This ^

Specialists are also going to have their reimbursements decline so that it could be "on par" with primary care.

I can't wait till orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, anesthesiologists, plastic surgeons, etc. start making 200k a year. Yay for Obamacare!!! 🙄 /sarcasm

These kinds of comments really prevent intelligent discussion. Use actual information and not speculative fear tactics.

This is a rather heavy issue being made horribly simplistic by both sides, but more so (on this forum) by those with criticisms. For example, plenty argue that we've just thrown people into the system without a means for paying for them. That's not really true, a means for paying for them was proposed. Whether you believe their sources did a good job is an entirely different matter of saying that no means for paying was devised.

Let's actually try to make this an informative discussion. I'd love to learn more from both sides about the reality of the situation instead of getting emotional verbal-diarrhea all over the thread.
 
From a doctor's point of view (Not me)


Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.


While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD

Stories like this, though great tools for imagery, are hardly the basis for or against a comprehensive plan that will likely effect hundreds of millions of individuals.

Look at it this way, had a doctor wrote a similar letter to the president about the poor bloke who works 3 jobs, struggles to attend evening classes to get his college degree, and volunteers at the local shelter from time time but one day gets a bad illness, looses his house, can't afford tuition, and no longer can meet the hourly demands of his jobs?

No one wants to hear a sob story, just like no one wants to hear some anecdote about why all those sorry SOB need to learn how to help themselves before we'll grace them with our charity. We're talking about people that literally will die. We're talking about billions of dollars in taxpayers money. We're talking about hundreds of private insurance, legal, and research corporations that will be affected. Let's leave story time for some day later.
 
Stories like this, though great tools for imagery, are hardly the basis for or against a comprehensive plan that will likely effect hundreds of millions of individuals.

Look at it this way, had a doctor wrote a similar letter to the president about the poor bloke who works 3 jobs, struggles to attend evening classes to get his college degree, and volunteers at the local shelter from time time but one day gets a bad illness, looses his house, can't afford tuition, and no longer can meet the hourly demands of his jobs?

No one wants to hear a sob story, just like no one wants to hear some anecdote about why all those sorry SOB need to learn how to help themselves before we'll grace them with our charity. We're talking about people that literally will die. We're talking about billions of dollars in taxpayers money. We're talking about hundreds of private insurance, legal, and research corporations that will be affected. Let's leave story time for some day later.

I quit my full time job to go back to school. I worked as a server through my undergrad, and in a lab at my school. I did community service volunteering and payed for all of my expenses out of pocket, including my tuition. I did not have health insurance for five years while doing this. I recieved no assistance at all from the government. Why should others get free healthcare when they don't do anything but waste money, dont take care of themselves, and pop out babies? And if they are entitiled, how come I am was not? This is completey ridiculous and biased. So yea, when I see this crap it does rub me wrong. Of course there are always exceptions, but we encourage this behavior. Why don't they drug test? I drug test to get a job. Why don't college students get help with health insurance? Medical students don't even get free healthcare! How can you justify this?
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I quit my full time job to go back to school. I worked as a server through my undergrad, and in a lab at my school. I did community service volunteering and payed for all of my expenses out of pocket, including my tuition. I did not have health insurance for five years while doing this. I recieved no assistance at all from the government. Why should others get free healthcare when they don't do anything but waste money, dont take care of themselves, and pop out babies? And if they are entitiled, how come I am was not? This is completey ridiculous and biased. So yea, when I see this crap it does rub me wrong. Of course there are always exceptions, but we encourage this behavior. Why don't they drug test? I drug test to get a job. Why don't college students get help with health insurance? Medical students don't even get free healthcare! How can you justify this?

Generalize much?
 
I quit my full time job to go back to school. I worked as a server through my undergrad, and in a lab at my school. I did community service volunteering and payed for all of my expenses out of pocket, including my tuition. I did not have health insurance for five years while doing this. I recieved no assistance at all from the government. Why should others get free healthcare when they don't do anything but waste money, dont take care of themselves, and pop out babies? And if they are entitiled, how come I am was not? This is completey ridiculous and biased. So yea, when I see this crap it does rub me wrong. Of course there are always exceptions, but we encourage this behavior. Why don't they drug test? I drug test to get a job. Why don't college students get help with health insurance? Medical students don't even get free healthcare! How can you justify this?

It sounds like you did need some help paying for healthcare as a full-time student. If I didn't know better I'd think you were making a case for universal healthcare.
 
Here's a thought:

Give everyone in the country the option of free healthcare or free beer. A large portion of the population will choose beer, and given that beer is cheaper then healthcare, national healthcare costs will go down. If anybody wants to appoint me as health tzar, please PM me.

In all seriousness though, why should healthcare be a right when a large portion of the population clearly prioritizes booze, drugs, cell phones, cars, houses, etc. above personal health care. Should those be rights? If not, why should your standards for what is important in life substitute for theirs? Also, when the vast majority of what determines health comes from outside the hospital/clinic, why should it be the governments place to provide health care/prescriptions, but not healthier food, cleaner living conditions, etc.?
 
Im not generalizing, but pointing out specifics....Like all of the people I've ever met who have 3-5 kids and no job. bridge cards they sell for cash to buy cigs and booze, and free health insurance with co-pays lower than the insurance I pay for. I've seen it first hand. How about buying birth control? People make poor decisions in life, and others pay for them. Of course ther are always exceptions as I pointed out, many many exceptions, such as disabled, vets, children, elderly, ect....whatever. Also, I am not opposed to health care reform if implemented correctly and equally, but I don't think the government is up to the task. This is a capitalist society afterall, nice facilities and specialist training cost a lot money.
 
In all seriousness though, why should healthcare be a right when a large portion of the population clearly prioritizes booze, drugs, cell phones, cars, houses, etc. above personal health care. Should those be rights? If not, why should your standards for what is important in life substitute for theirs? Also, when the vast majority of what determines health comes from outside the hospital/clinic, why should it be the governments place to provide health care/prescriptions, but not healthier food, cleaner living conditions, etc.?

Said with a certain cavalier-ness , but there is a lot of truth in there. When copays for an emergent procedure, seldom experienced, are less tham a monthly cell phone bill, and they're met with anger and indignity, where are our priorities, generally? And that being the case, why should I find it important to broadly and absolutely subsidize that society's health care needs at my expense? Because these are things on which you have to get my buy-in, since they aren't core functions of the government as granted by the Constitution. My vote gets say so in such matters, so I have to be convinced.
 
As always, I'm curious about babies. If an irresponsible, unemployed mother delivers a baby with hypoplastic left heart or congenital diaphragmatic hernia with PPHN, what should I do given that a reasonable estimate of costs for care of the baby is 1/2 - 1 million dollars but outcome is fairly decent.

Does this baby have an intrinsic right to health care, even if it costs a lot of money?
 
Med, Thanks for the consideration of my post.

1. I'm aware that physician compensation is going to be on a downward trend and I acknowledge healthcare costs are unsustainable at this time. My point was simply that other things should be looked at long before physicians put themselves on the chopping block. There's so much that could be done with tort reform and other optimizations.

As far as being entitled goes, I expect to be able to pay my loans and still be able to afford a decent living when I'm done with school/residency. I could honestly never put this much effort into something I didn't expect to provide for myself and family. I think that's fair.

2. I was trying to say that I don't think that doctors should have their standard of living chipped away at just to cover for people that chose to spend all their going out on the town instead of paying for insurance. How many of the uninsured are healthy young people that don't think they need insurance? How many of the 45,000 that dawg talks about were actually unable to afford insurance? That's what I primarily meant by "bad decisions," among other things like smoking/drug use, etc.

I'm covered by two insurance companies right now (one is paid for 100% by employer, non-union), so I know it's not exceptionally hard to get basic insurance if you're willing to put in the effort. Neither my wife or I are working jobs that are intellectually demanding (I can't wait for August.) or jobs that require a narrow skill set. We actually have a lot of turn over at our jobs and people just randomly ditch before they get insurance started.

Don't get me wrong though, I think that insurance is getting way too expensive. I just believe that there's a lot of work that needs to be done in other areas before we give up and throw ourselves on the chopping block.

This is excellent. There are also other-interest groups who would also happily dip into physician pay as part of the "solution." If all we end up doing is crying about it, that is what will happen because the industries surrounding health insurance, medical malpractice litigation, malpractice insurance, and big pharm fight a lot harder than physicians to protect their profits. So we're not the only ones thinking about physician pay decreasing, but we are the only ones who have a stake in keeping it reasonable (relative to our educational debt).

You do realize the government actually produces no money right? You do realize the money that they government uses is from taxpayers right? So when you say government pay, you mean government allocating taxes and managing how its spent. Afterall, the money doesn't magically fly across the country and allocate itself. If that's not running things I'm not sure what is.

You do realize that starting a post with "You do realize" makes the rest of what you say much less palatable, right?

You do realize the government actually produces no money right? You do realize the money that they government uses is from taxpayers right? So when you say government pay, you mean government allocating taxes and managing how its spent. Afterall, the money doesn't magically fly across the country and allocate itself. If that's not running things I'm not sure what is.
That's actually not quite true. The government is perfectly capable of producing money, it just doesn't do so that much because this boosts inflation, thereby devaluing our currency.

Additionally, the government creates and issues bonds (read: loans) which other countries buy. That's how we can keep spending on wars and medicare even with such a huge deficit.

The government *shouldn't* do this much, but printing money and loosening credit is their current strategy for stimulating the economy.

When you combine this with selling bonds to other countries (Glorious Peoples Republic of China), we've really got an interesting shell game going on. From the administrative end, the government looks pretty bad but the financiers may have an interesting idea with these bonds.

As an individual, if you owe the bank a million dollars, they own you. If you owe the bank a billion dollars, you own the bank. If you default it's going to screw them way harder than it screws you. If China wants to keep snatching up our bonds, they're putting themselves in a position where they have an interest in keeping us from collapse. So we can either rely on their support to keep us out of economic apocalypse, or that apocalypse clears our balance sheet.

Best practice? Nah. But we'll see if that works out for us. It would be very hard to believe that there's an earnest plan to service all of that debt.

Currently, Doctors in the private sectors/clinics are paid not by salary, but by the number of patients they see.

Not everywhere. The Mayo Clinic (come at me, bros!) salaries their physicians irrespectively of what they generate in insurance reimbursements. They also happen to be one of the positive deviants in the health care system, in that they provide some of the best care and yield some of the best outcomes without churning up absurdly high costs.

It should be noted that the Arizona and Florida offshoots have not been as successful at managing cost while providing such a high standard of care. So whatever they are doing in Minnesota can't simply be extrapolated to the rest of the nation, but I'm sure there are lessons to be learned.

I quit my full time job to go back to school. I worked as a server through my undergrad, and in a lab at my school. I did community service volunteering and payed for all of my expenses out of pocket, including my tuition. I did not have health insurance for five years while doing this. I recieved no assistance at all from the government. Why should others get free healthcare when they don't do anything but waste money, dont take care of themselves, and pop out babies? And if they are entitiled, how come I am was not? This is completey ridiculous and biased. So yea, when I see this crap it does rub me wrong. Of course there are always exceptions, but we encourage this behavior. Why don't they drug test? I drug test to get a job. Why don't college students get help with health insurance? Medical students don't even get free healthcare! How can you justify this?

Dude, I understand your frustration. But no one is trying to justify students getting bent-over by the system while welfare recipients are grandfathered into receiving government aid. In fact, we're all barking up the same tree here. The current system needs to change. How?

Drug-testing people on government aid is not a solution. Every penny you save kicking a drug addict off welfare, you've already spent paying to test everyone else.
 
Umm, what? Please try again and I'll address a coherent statement.

So my "cold facts" are merely talking points, but your statistics are the end all to which country has the best healthcare? Prostate 1y mortality... wtf are you even talking about? Prostate cancer? The act of having a prostate?

Of course I was talking about cancer you half wit. I apologize I was using copious amounts of auto complete to insult you. Seeing as you are unable to do basic biomedical research I think you need to quit while you are ahead.

I was afraid I said mortality, 1-year survival for prostate cancer not mortality (but I had figured your a bright guy and could figure it out).

I'll give you a hint and we can test your reading comprehension: eurocare-4

I'm actually concerned for your ability to look that up so here are cliff notes if you need help: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

Sorry to rock your world buddy.

Fun fact for you to also ponder about. Why is it Europeans spend nearly twice time in the hospital vs. US. Patients for the same procedures?

I really would like to find out how that impacts nosocomial infections...especially in the UK where they brought back that nasty indian MDR bacteria (See medical tourism).

And to address infant mortality...man thats a fun one. I don't recall the exact time frame/weeks because its changed over the past 20 years but in the UK they simply let premature babies of a certain gestation die, no care is given. This had been a fairly barbaric cutoff in the 90's (like 28 or 26 or 24 weeks or something disgusting but its improved as it should they go down to 22 now).

Now premature babies cost a ****-ton to take care of (like 50k+ depending on how young), but you know if it was my kid I would hope I wouldn't just get to watch them die.
 
Last edited:
As always, I'm curious about babies. If an irresponsible, unemployed mother delivers a baby with hypoplastic left heart or congenital diaphragmatic hernia with PPHN, what should I do given that a reasonable estimate of costs for care of the baby is 1/2 - 1 million dollars but outcome is fairly decent.

Does this baby have an intrinsic right to health care, even if it costs a lot of money?

That wooooosh! you just heard was the sound of that post zooming right over our pre-med heads, OBP 😉
 
Here's a thought:

Give everyone in the country the option of free healthcare or free beer. A large portion of the population will choose beer, and given that beer is cheaper then healthcare, national healthcare costs will go down. If anybody wants to appoint me as health tzar, please PM me.

In all seriousness though, why should healthcare be a right when a large portion of the population clearly prioritizes booze, drugs, cell phones, cars, houses, etc. above personal health care. Should those be rights? If not, why should your standards for what is important in life substitute for theirs? Also, when the vast majority of what determines health comes from outside the hospital/clinic, why should it be the governments place to provide health care/prescriptions, but not healthier food, cleaner living conditions, etc.?

These statements are true, but I think some people are simply too naive to buy it. It makes me feel that everyone who votes for certain entitlement programs should spend some time working in a public service job or even as a cashier, so as to witness people's choices firsthand. Not everyone is raised with hard working middle-class "do the right thing" values. 🙄 Not everyone who is eligible for public assistance is simply "down on their luck." Case in point: watched a young women pull out her food stamps card out of a designer Coach wallet.

Pride is dead. Entitlement is in.
 
As always, I'm curious about babies. If an irresponsible, unemployed mother delivers a baby with hypoplastic left heart or congenital diaphragmatic hernia with PPHN, what should I do given that a reasonable estimate of costs for care of the baby is 1/2 - 1 million dollars but outcome is fairly decent.

Does this baby have an intrinsic right to health care, even if it costs a lot of money?

Let me ask the accountants...
 
As always, I'm curious about babies. If an irresponsible, unemployed mother delivers a baby with hypoplastic left heart or congenital diaphragmatic hernia with PPHN, what should I do given that a reasonable estimate of costs for care of the baby is 1/2 - 1 million dollars but outcome is fairly decent.

Does this baby have an intrinsic right to health care, even if it costs a lot of money?

And to be srs, yes, that baby should have the procedure done. Even at UK-level QALY values, with "fairly decent" outcomes, that baby will cover the spread on that therapy being a sufficient "value" to justify the public expense. Should we figure out ways to incentivize better behavior from that particular brand of mother? Sure. Do we abandon the baby? Of course not.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Of course I was talking about cancer you half wit. I apologize I was using copious amounts of auto complete to insult you. Seeing as you are unable to do basic biomedical research I think you need to quit while you are ahead.

I was afraid I said mortality, 1-year survival for prostate cancer not mortality (but I had figured your a bright guy and could figure it out).

Sorry to rock your world buddy.

It's been said before, but if you're (your) going to insult someone's intelligence, mind your (you're) grammar (grammer).

If you're (your) not going to mind your (you're) grammar (grammer), then don't insult somebody's intelligence. It's not too (to) much to (too) ask.
 
I'm actually doing a research paper over the suckiness of the u.s. health care system that's due tomorrow -____- and what I've found out is that America's health care lags behind every other developed industrial country in the world. Politicians use the scare tactic of "socialized medicine" will cause us to be a socialized country and the quality of health care will decline. The truth is, it works fine in countries like Canada, France, and Australia. Us Americans are just greedy and money hungry I guess.


And please don't give me that crap about Canadians coming to Michigan or whatever to get treatment. Americans go to Canada and do the exact same thing.
 
You need to spend more time around a Chinatown, most any will do, and see from whence that wallet comes. Many downtown sidewalks will reveal the same secrets 😉

Canal St. ftw. Would you like some bootleg DVD's while I'm there?

Short answer of my simul-post.

twinkies

aed81948-77b2-4a68-8a05-b4dc7b945029.jpg
 
I'm actually doing a research paper over the suckiness of the u.s. health care system that's due tomorrow -____- and what I've found out is that America's health care lags behind every other developed industrial country in the world. Politicians use the scare tactic of "socialized medicine" will cause us to be a socialized country and the quality of health care will decline. The truth is, it works fine in countries like Canada, France, and Australia. Us Americans are just greedy and money hungry I guess.


And please don't give me that crap about Canadians coming to Michigan or whatever to get treatment. Americans go to Canada and do the exact same thing.

You need to define "lags" and "fine" a little more exactly, because I think that your definition and my definition are not the same thing. The concept of having to read 30 such research papers was plenty to keep me from ever considering a position in the professoriat.
 
You need to spend more time around a Chinatown, most any will do, and see from whence that wallet comes. Many downtown sidewalks will reveal the same secrets 😉

Oh I know it was a real one. It was the same pattern as my purse, lol! Either way, I am confident that there are many that would have no qualms about spending $150 on a wallet while applying for food stamps. Also have seen pictures in news articles of the assistance lines with people texting on their Blackberrys. My state is extra weird like that, though.
 
I'm actually doing a research paper over the suckiness of the u.s. health care system that's due tomorrow -____- and what I've found out is that America's health care lags behind every other developed industrial country in the world. Politicians use the scare tactic of "socialized medicine" will cause us to be a socialized country and the quality of health care will decline. The truth is, it works fine in countries like Canada, France, and Australia. Us Americans are just greedy and money hungry I guess.


And please don't give me that crap about Canadians coming to Michigan or whatever to get treatment. Americans go to Canada and do the exact same thing.

Are you a freshman?? In high school? Please post your bibliography.
 
Oh I know it was a real one. It was the same pattern as my purse, lol! Either way, I am confident that there are many that would have no qualms about spending $150 on a wallet while applying for food stamps. Also have seen pictures in news articles of the assistance lines with people texting on their Blackberrys. My state is extra weird like that, though.

The irony isn't lost. I've seen a woman in a full-length mink coat (with a massive Coach bag) lash out against a clerk who asked her what her copay was...she was furious the clerk didn't remember that the woman was on Medicare.

Just the same, these WTF moments don't add any fuel to the productivity fire. The more time we spend laughing or crying about that BS, the less time we are generating new ideas.
 
In all seriousness though, why should healthcare be a right when a large portion of the population clearly prioritizes booze, drugs, cell phones, cars, houses, etc. above personal health care. Should those be rights? If not, why should your standards for what is important in life substitute for theirs? Also, when the vast majority of what determines health comes from outside the hospital/clinic, why should it be the governments place to provide health care/prescriptions, but not healthier food, cleaner living conditions, etc.?

One of the first items cut from every state budget is education. People pay tens of thousands for cars, homes, etc but would send student to a crappy school whose funding was severely reduced from said budget than fork up for a private education (if we assume a basic private school can outperform an overcrowded, underperforming public school). Just look at what's happening to the US school system.

Should education not be a right?

The average American (perhaps even human) is very bad about spending their time and money on what is best from them when short term gratification can be had. This isn't some mental disease that plagues only the poor or the chronically unhealthy (though they can certainly exemplify it).

It's a right for its own intrinsic value, not for how much each of us is individually willing to sacrifice without those kinds of regulations in place.
 
The irony isn't lost. I've seen a woman in a full-length mink coat (with a massive Coach bag) lash out against a clerk who asked her what her copay was...she was furious the clerk didn't remember that the woman was on Medicare.

Just the same, these WTF moments don't add any fuel to the productivity fire. The more time we spend laughing or crying about that BS, the less time we are generating new ideas.

What's more, our debate shouldn't let such cases, though memorable, mask the real meat of the debate. Are we trying to create a system that cannot be gamed? I contend you'll never find such a system. People cheat every system and try to milk what they can, from millionare Investment Bankers to the drug-addicted medicare scam artist. However, if the benefits of the system outweigh what's lost in these cases, than we should pursue them aggressively while continuing to pursue those who cheat it.

Let's not forget that there are plenty of "horror stories" that the public uses of physicians gaming the billing system or other horribly unethical practices to paint us all with a broad brush to encourage slashing wages, resisting malpractice reform, etc. In much the same way we are angered and frustrated at these attempts to represent us, others who don't have the political or economic power to make their voice heard are similarly being cheated when we use these examples to portray them all.

Keep in mind I'm not advocating anything other than a real conscientious discussion of this issue without character attacks, misinformation, excessive emotionality (some emotion is ok...we're talking about serious stuff here afterall), and a mindset not focused on finding the best result but merely discrediting others.
 
That's actually not quite true. The government is perfectly capable of producing money, it just doesn't do so that much because this boosts inflation, thereby devaluing our currency.

Additionally, the government creates and issues bonds (read: loans) which other countries buy. That's how we can keep spending on wars and medicare even with such a huge deficit.
Patently wrong.

Governments produce nothing but violence. By definition.
 
The irony isn't lost. I've seen a woman in a full-length mink coat (with a massive Coach bag) lash out against a clerk who asked her what her copay was...she was furious the clerk didn't remember that the woman was on Medicare.

Just the same, these WTF moments don't add any fuel to the productivity fire. The more time we spend laughing or crying about that BS, the less time we are generating new ideas.

That is true, but I would argue that cultural observations can add an element of personal passion for such issues. It's better than sticking your head in the sand and believing everything you hear from others, instead of what you see for yourself. Don't worry, though; I will try to brainstorm.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It's been said before, but if you're (your) going to insult someone's intelligence, mind your (you're) grammar (grammer).

If you're (your) not going to mind your (you're) grammar (grammer), then don't insult somebody's intelligence. It's not too (to) much to (too) ask.

Didn't proofread I'm aware of proper English as I have managed to write one or more essays in my time, but thanks I appreciate the concern. On a further note I'm glad you understood me anyway, so your <- YAY! reading comprehension is up to par!

So it's you're a douchbag right? That's correct? No wait that cant be right. :scared: Now I'm just confused.
 
Patently wrong.

Governments produce nothing but violence. By definition.

I 😍 FlowRate.

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. "
-Ayn Rand
 
Last edited:
And to address infant mortality...man thats a fun one. I don't recall the exact time frame/weeks because its changed over the past 20 years but in the UK they simply let premature babies of a certain gestation die, no care is given. This had been a fairly barbaric cutoff in the 90's (like 28 or 26 or 24 weeks or something disgusting but its improved as it should they go down to 22 now).

Is this true?
 
This is basically it folks.

As a country, obesity is going to bankrupt our healthcare system.

Since personal responsibility doesn't seem to be important to the current leadership and most of the rest of the world (looking at you Europe) instead of helping people make better choices its only inevitable that we change our healthcare system to take care of the fatty fat fats, because there is certainly no way for them to help themselves.

This is the end of the debate really it will bankrupt us eventually.

This may have been said but I'm really just skimming this thread.
 
Is this true?

Yes and they got a load of flak for it and it no longer exists. Call it growing pains.

Many of the public systems also wont pay for super expensive new drugs (or hold off as long as possible).

Look into treatments for macular degeneration and the anti-vgef's. So basically Canada and the UK (and possibly elsewhere) used to let people go blind because they didnt want to pay for the new anti-vgefs if I recall. We used them in the US, found them effective combined with lots of bitching...and they get coverage. USA USA!

We're not much better I think medicare would let you go blind in an eye before paying for treatment as well.
 
Last edited:
I'm freshman in college..why do you need to see my bibliography?

It's because you started your post with "I'm writing a paper on..." to justify yourself as having some authority on the topic of healthcare reform. Except writing a paper on it doesn't give you any authority, it just means you're slightly more informed than the average American.

The bibliography would be helpful in justifying your vague claims that U.S. healthcare lags behind that of other countries.
 
Didn't proofread I'm aware of proper English as I have managed to write one or more essays in my time, but thanks I appreciate the concern. On a further note I'm glad you understood me anyway, so your <- YAY! reading comprehension is up to par!

So it's you're a douchbag right? That's correct? No wait that cant be right. :scared: Now I'm just confused.

When you have to revert to an ad hominem, you've pretty much declared defeat in whatever argument you're engaged (note correct usage.)
 
What's more, our debate shouldn't let such cases, though memorable, mask the real meat of the debate. Are we trying to create a system that cannot be gamed? I contend you'll never find such a system. People cheat every system and try to milk what they can, from millionare Investment Bankers to the drug-addicted medicare scam artist. However, if the benefits of the system outweigh what's lost in these cases, than we should pursue them aggressively while continuing to pursue those who cheat it.

Let's not forget that there are plenty of "horror stories" that the public uses of physicians gaming the billing system or other horribly unethical practices to paint us all with a broad brush to encourage slashing wages, resisting malpractice reform, etc. In much the same way we are angered and frustrated at these attempts to represent us, others who don't have the political or economic power to make their voice heard are similarly being cheated when we use these examples to portray them all.

Keep in mind I'm not advocating anything other than a real conscientious discussion of this issue without character attacks, misinformation, excessive emotionality (some emotion is ok...we're talking about serious stuff here afterall), and a mindset not focused on finding the best result but merely discrediting others.

I agree--all excellent points.

That is true, but I would argue that cultural observations can add an element of personal passion for such issues. It's better than sticking your head in the sand and believing everything you hear from others, instead of what you see for yourself. Don't worry, though; I will try to brainstorm.

Yes I agree with you. There's a threshold within which passion is constructive. I was just pumping the brakes lest we exceed that threshold and digress into heated story-time followed by the inevitable URM flamewar.

Didn't proofread I'm aware of proper English as I have managed to write one or more essays in my time, but thanks I appreciate the concern. On a further note I'm glad you understood me anyway, so your <- YAY! reading comprehension is up to par!

So it's you're a douchbag right? That's correct? No wait that cant be right. :scared: Now I'm just confused.

I don't know, dude, maybe it's just that your apostrophe key is malfunctioning. I'm not concerned about your grammar, but you provided a nice teachable moment--if not for you, certainly for everyone reading your rants.

I think you were making a point with that medscape reference, I'm just not sure what it was because most of your argument was based on deriding the other person's intelligence. That approach failed because your own writing speaks quite honestly as to whether or not you're an appropriate judge of this attribute.

It's not that you're stupid. But you're not making much progress on the case for your intelligence, or any other case you might be trying to make here.

People who employ ad hominem without realizing it (or even knowing what it is) may make a point, just not the point they had intended. You, my friend, have filled your ad hom quota. I suspect you'll continue, and I have little objection; in fact, I'll sit back and admire the consequences. For your reference, you used "you're" correctly. "Douchbag" was a swing and a miss. Happy Googling.
 
When you have to revert to an ad hominem, you've pretty much declared defeat in whatever argument you're engaged (note correct usage.)

The irony is that the wonderful post pointing out my grammatical error was in fact an ad hominem (by the strictest sense obviously because the said poster understood me), but we let that slide don't we.


How funny is that, see what you want to see huh?

Done playing with the kids in this thread.
 
I 😍 FlowRate.

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. "
-Ayn Rand
😉

I like Rand most of the time. It's a shame most people are conditioned to dislike her work without reading any of it. However, I didn't come to my political philosophy through atlas shrugged, unlike most of the libertarians (and objectivists) I know.
 
The irony is that the wonderful post pointing out my grammatical error was in fact an ad hominem (by the strictest sense obviously because the said poster understood me), but we let that slide don't we.


How funny is that, see what you want to see huh?

Done playing with the kids in this thread.

Irony is everywhere. This post is itself an example of confirmation bias, and it is trying to call out confirmation bias.

You saw an adhominem where there was none. I wasn't insulting you, nor arguing with you (and even now I do only the latter). I was making an observation that if a post is riddled with errors and it is calling someone else stupid, this lacks almost every manner of efficacy. It does one thing effectively. We'll connect the dots some other time.
 
I don't recall the exact time frame/weeks because its changed over the past 20 years but in the UK they simply let premature babies of a certain gestation die, no care is given. This had been a fairly barbaric cutoff in the 90's (like 28 or 26 or 24 weeks or something disgusting but its improved as it should they go down to 22 now).

Now premature babies cost a ****-ton to take care of (like 50k+ depending on how young), but you know if it was my kid I would hope I wouldn't just get to watch them die.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say about the UK. However, at present, there is fairly little difference in what babies are resuscitated and given neonatal care in the UK and most of Western Europe (and Japan, Israel, Australia, and a few other places) than in the US. In general, difference are diminishing in care practices between countries. There is a tendency for more aggressive care in the US, but really, the distinction is currently very small.

And 50K+? That covers the first 10 days, add a zero to the end and you have the approximate neonatal care costs of a 24-25 week preterm infant.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
😉

I like Rand most of the time. It's a shame most people are conditioned to dislike her work without reading any of it. However, I didn't come to my political philosophy through atlas shrugged, unlike most of the libertarians (and objectivists) I know.

Truth be told I can't finish Atlas Shrugged. I've tried 3 times. I'm not ashamed to say it was my personal eye opener though.
 
The irony is that the wonderful post pointing out my grammatical error was in fact an ad hominem (by the strictest sense obviously because the said poster understood me), but we let that slide don't we.


How funny is that, see what you want to see huh?

Done playing with the kids in this thread.

Friend, you need to order yourself a copy of Strunk & White and learn something before you try to get tied up in these little tiffs. Or get the random-comma-error function disabled on your (see how I did that?) computer. The "kids" in this thread will carry on fine within the intellectual vacuum behind which your absence will leave.
 
It's because you started your post with "I'm writing a paper on..." to justify yourself as having some authority on the topic of healthcare reform. Except writing a paper on it doesn't give you any authority, it just means you're slightly more informed than the average American.

The bibliography would be helpful in justifying your vague claims that U.S. healthcare lags behind that of other countries.

Oh no not at all, I just thought it was ironic because I hadn't been to this site in a while and I found it funny that this was a thread. I know there are a lot of condescending jerks on this board, but I'm certainly not one of them lol. I'm pretty down to earth, my life doesn't revolve around me being "pre-med." And in my findings, I discovered that the World Health Organization has America's health system ranked 37th in the world in overall performance. That's kinda low for 'one of the best countries in the world' dontcha think? What is really appalling is that every citizen doesn't have access to health care. And American doctors don't do a good job at preventive care, but they're not paid for preventive care, they're paid for every single test they run (which I think is wrong). The test doesn't even have to necessary. Hmm..no wonder my PCP always draws blood, just to tell me "everything is fine."
 
Oh no not at all, I just thought it was ironic because I hadn't been to this site in a while and I found it funny that this was a thread. I know there are a lot of condescending jerks on this board, but I'm certainly not one of them lol. I'm pretty down to earth, my life doesn't revolve around me being "pre-med." And in my findings, I discovered that the World Health Organization has America's health system ranked 37th in the world in overall performance. That's kinda low for 'one of the best countries in the world' dontcha think? What is really appalling is that every citizen doesn't have access to health care. And American doctors don't do a good job at preventive care, but they're not paid for preventive care, they're paid for every single test they run (which I think is wrong). The test doesn't even have to necessary. Hmm..no wonder my PCP always draws blood, just to tell me "everything is fine."

Mmmm....strong in you, the fallacy is.
 
And American doctors don't do a good job at preventive care, but they're not paid for preventive care, they're paid for every single test they run (which I think is wrong).

My billing codes are by diagnosis and time spent on patient care, not by test ordered. I don't make any extra money, directly or indirectly, by ordering more tests (blood, radiologic, etc) on babies.