Documentary on a Fix for the Healthcare System

  • Thread starter Thread starter Viki63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sy_Noe said:
I’ve seen this argued before. I don’t find it realistic at all. There is not enough charity in this country that can even come close to paying for the healthcare costs of everyone in need. Not with the cost of prescription drugs, dr visits, diagnostic testing and surgeries. 1 person’s surgery alone can easily be in the 5 figures. That’s why there needs to be a role for government along with individual and faith based charity.
Click to expand...
There is enough charity if we restrict it to those who truly need it. There are plenty of people with money in retirement accounts who can pay for their own healthcare, but why should they do that if the government is going to give them insurance?
 
PaulinVA said:
People who talk about reducing the cost of healthcare are not taking into account one important fact. The people that are losing the money being saved (providers, plans, whomever) will make the money up some other way.

Remember when Congress was so happy with themselves when they reduced “swipe fees” on credit cards that merchants are charged? The banks just went marauding around looking for other way ways to make up the money in other fees.
Click to expand...
I see you point, but you cant get at the root of the problem by “flatting” the issue.
It needs to be looked at, and tackled in 3-D. Start with Tort Reform, and work up. Then work on the actual cost associated with operating an Dr Office,clinic, hospital. If it takes subsidies, I would rather it be on the manufacturing and supplier end of healthcare, and not the end user side. Control and reduce operating cost = lower cost to end user, this has applied in every other aspect of a consumer driven economy.
 
Biggin said:
I see you point, but you cant get at the root of the problem by “flatting” the issue.
It needs to be looked at, and tackled in 3-D. Start with Tort Reform, and work up. Then work on the actual cost associated with operating an Dr Office,clinic, hospital. If it takes subsidies, I would rather it be on the manufacturing and supplier end of healthcare, and not the end user side. Control and reduce operating cost = lower cost to end user, this has applied in every other aspect of a consumer driven economy.
Click to expand...
A big problem is that occupational licensing restricts entry into the medical profession. The government should not be deciding who is qualified to practice medicine, only the consumer should have the right to decide who is qualified to treat them.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
A big problem is that occupational licensing restricts entry into the medical profession. The government should not be deciding who is qualified to practice medicine, only the consumer should have the right to decide who is qualified to treat them.
Click to expand...
That is the most dangerous thing I’ve ever heard.
 
PaulinVA said:
No, I believe in professional licensure.

Consumer sovereignty has nothing to do with determining who can treat someone.
Click to expand...
I trust individuals to look out for their best interests over the government. The government has no competence to determine who is qualified to treat someone.
 
PaulinVA said:
Please post something relevant to the licensing of medical professionals, who can prescribe narcotics and perform surgeries.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that our government has any competence in determining who should prescribe narcotics or perform surgeries? We have plenty of malpractice suits already with your beloved government regulation, so the government certainly does not weed out those who are unfit to practice.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
What makes you think that our government has any competence in determining who should prescribe narcotics or perform surgeries? We have plenty of malpractice suits already with your beloved government regulation, so the government certainly does not weed out those who are unfit to practice.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. I can’t continue a conversation about this. Your position is so out there that I don’t really want to spend the time.
 
PaulinVA said:
I’m sorry. I can’t continue a conversation about this. Your position is so out there that I don’t really want to spend the time.
Click to expand...
You consider Milton Friedman out there? My position on this issue is no different than his. Just because you don’t understand something does not make it “out there”. I understand, however, that you do not fully understand the issue enough to discuss it intelligently. I commend you for your honesty.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
You consider Milton Friedman out there? My position on this issue is no different than his. Just because you don’t understand something does not make it “out there”. I understand, however, that you do not fully understand the issue enough to discuss it intelligently. I commend you for your honesty.
Click to expand...
No, even Cato doesn’t touch medical licensure. That’s my point. The person who shampoos your hair in a salon is different from a surgeon or a nurse midwife or and ENT that sticks things in your ear.

I could agree that licensure for some professions is not necessary. But this is a healthcare debate. You haven’t addressed why you think that we shouldn’t license healthcare professionals.
 
PaulinVA said:
No, even Cato doesn’t touch medical licensure. That’s my point. The person who shampoos your hair in a salon is different from a surgeon or a nurse midwife or and ENT that sticks things in your ear.
Click to expand...
Cato doesn’t? Could have fooled me. You really ought to do your homework before making outlandish claims.

cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/medical-licensing-obstacle-affordable-quality-care
I could agree that licensure for some professions is not necessary. But this is a healthcare debate. You haven’t addressed why you think that we shouldn’t license healthcare professionals.
Click to expand...
Two reasons: Medical licensure does not protect consumers and medical licensing increases costs.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Cato doesn’t? Could have fooled me. You really ought to do your homework before making outlandish claims.

cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/medical-licensing-obstacle-affordable-quality-care
Click to expand...
In the link you sent, the speaker specifically said he wasn’t addressing medical licensing. I’m just responding to what you provided. This second link is just plain stupid.

Consumers would benefit were states to eliminate professional licensing in medicine and leave education, credentialing, and scope-of-practice decisions entirely to the private sector and the courts.

OR THE COURTS? Sure, people say they can treat you but are wackos and they kill people and then go to jail. NO thanks.
 
PaulinVA said:
In the link you sent, the speaker specifically said he wasn’t addressing medical licensing. I’m just responding to what you provided. This second link is just plain stupid.

Consumers would benefit were states to eliminate professional licensing in medicine and leave education, credentialing, and scope-of-practice decisions entirely to the private sector and the courts.

OR THE COURTS? Sure, people say they can treat you but are wackos and they kill people and then go to jail. NO thanks.
Click to expand...
How would consumers be harmed by what he proposes, given that government regulation that we have now does not protect consumers and raises their prices?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
How would consumers be harmed by what he proposes, given that government regulation that we have now does not protect consumers and raises their prices?
Click to expand...
Your premise is flawed. The current regulations do indeed keep the wackos out. Just think. Would you want anyone off the street to be able to open a doctor’s office and prescribe drugs?

Even with the licensure requirements, there are some people who practice without a license, and they are dangerous, but the majority of licensed practitioners are safe.
 
PaulinVA said:
Your premise is flawed. The current regulations do indeed keep the wackos out. Just think. Would you want anyone off the street to be able to open a doctor’s office and prescribe drugs?

Even with the licensure requirements, there are some people who practice without a license, and they are dangerous, but the majority of licensed practitioners are safe.
Click to expand...
You follow the Jon Gruber school of thought that people are not smart enough to manage their own affairs and need the heavy hand of government to micromanage their lives. I follow the Milton Friedman school of thought that people know their own interests much better than the government which allegedly “protects” them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top