Why Am I for nationa healthcare?

[Oscarthecat]

Oncologists can make that money because people are so desperate to survive cancer that they and their insurers will pay and there would be an even greater outcry if insurers whined more than they already do about paying out.

A thing is worth what someone will pay for it.

I don’t think that is an entirely fair assessment.

While market forces certainly are at work in determining physician salaries, your statement seems to accuse doctors of price gouging. Rather, the market forces at work have more to do with determining the value of a physicians labor commensurate to their investment of time and money in years of school training, the level of stress and responsibility as compared to other, non-medical, fields, and the need to maintain competitive wages with other comparable careers to which physicians may be drawn.

I seriously doubt that oncologists, or any physician in this country for that matter, consider how to cash in on the individual’s desperation. I find that to be a gross misrepresentation of how medical billing is managed at the level of direct care, in this country, at least.

The only arguable exception to this would be the elective surgical fields, like plastic surgery or laser eye treatments, which are usually not covered by insurance. Interestingly, though, the cost of those kinds of procedures have consistently gone DOWN over time, while the cost of treatments covered by insurance have typically gone UP over time.

 

[pathia]

I don’t think that is an entirely fair assessment, as it seems to accuse doctors of price gouging.

While market forces certainly are at work in determining physician salaries, your statement seems to accuse doctors of price gouging. Rather, the market forces at work have more to do with determining the value of a physicians labor commensurate to their investment of time and money in years of school training, the level of stress and responsibility as compared to other, non-medical, fields, and the need to maintain competitive wages with other comparable careers to which physicians may be drawn.

I seriously doubt that oncologists, or any physician in this country for that matter, consider how to cash in on the individual’s desperation. I find that to be a gross misrepresentation of how medical billing is managed at the level of direct care, in this country, at least.

The only arguable exception to this would be the elective surgical fields, like plastic surgery or laser eye treatments, which are usually not covered by insurance. Interestingly, though, the cost of those kinds of procedures have consistently gone DOWN over time, while the cost of treatments covered by insurance have typically gone UP over time.

I don’t think the doctors price gouge, it’s more the drug makers. I think one of my mom’s chemo treatments cost something like $40,000 a month.

 

[Fran65]

If oncologists are not making as much money as the market will bear
which suggests that they are working as a result of vocation why aren’t more of them doing ‘pro bono’ work for those who don’t have insurance or have inadequate insurance?

 

[Oscarthecat]

If oncologists are not making as much money as the market will bear
which suggests that they are working as a result of vocation why aren’t more of them doing ‘pro bono’ work for those who don’t have insurance or have inadequate insurance?

how do you know they aren’t?
do you have any data on how many patients doctors see pro bono?

I am related to several physicians in a variety of different fields- every single one of them does work free of charge on a per case basis. But none of them announce that in any kind of public forum because drawing that kind of attention to one’s charitable work is considered obnoxious.

 

[Oscarthecat]

If oncologists are not making as much money as the market will bear

and I do think that doctors are earning what the market bears- but the market is determined by the factors I laid out in my earlier post- and not by figuring out the maximum amount a patient’s fears will compel them to pay.

Think about it this way- if the market determined prices based on what patients could pay, then the market would set prices at what patients could afford- it wouldn’t inflate prices to be out of reach of so many patients.

If that was how the market worked, nobody could afford anything!

 

[aspawloski4th]

It’s very sad that we are deducing haman well being to market this, capitalism that. This could of been wrong on the part of my parents, but I was taught growing up that it is a mortal sin to put a monatary value on another human’s life. By making this a purely financial issue is puting monatary value on hum life.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

It’s very sad that we are deducing haman well being to market this, capitalism that. This could of been wrong on the part of my parents, but I was taught growing up that it is a mortal sin to put a monatary value on another human’s life. By making this a purely financial issue is puting monatary value on hum life.

 

[tjm190]

Oncologists can make that money because people are so desperate to survive cancer that they and their insurers will pay and there would be an even greater outcry if insurers whined more than they already do about paying out.

A thing is worth what someone will pay for it.

Hmmm… you clearly understand that market forces determine the pay for oncologists- but don’t seem to understand that they do so for health care as a whole.

Oncologists are paid so much so that we can get people to go through the long process of becoming an oncologist instead of entering some other field.

 

[tjm190]

It’s very sad that we are deducing haman well being to market this, capitalism that. This could of been wrong on the part of my parents, but I was taught growing up that it is a mortal sin to put a monatary value on another human’s life. By making this a purely financial issue is puting monatary value on hum life.

I’m talking about the cost of health care which IS determined by economics, like it or not.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I’m talking about the cost of health care which IS determined by economics, like it or not.

that’s such a general statement that it doesn’t mean anything.
It’s like saying “treating illness is determined by biology” or “flying is determined by physics.”

Everything that deals with a monetary component is, to some degree, determined by market economics.

Everyone knows that our ability, as a society, to manage the healthcare industry will be determined by economics, whether we do it through private enterprise or through government takeover.

So, given that, what are you trying to get at with your statement?

 

[LittleSoldier]

LittleSoldier,

I think we disagree on some stuff, agree on other stuff, but you have generally been a good and respectful debater.

Thank you. I feel the same about you. I know this subject brings out so much anger in people and that surprises me. Anger stops us from reaching any sort of consensus on what should be done.

 

[tjm190]

that’s such a general statement that it doesn’t mean anything.
It’s like saying “treating illness is determined by biology” or “flying is determined by physics.”

Everything that deals with a monetary component is, to some degree, determined by market economics.

Everyone knows that our ability, as a society, to manage the healthcare industry will be determined by economics, whether we do it through private enterprise or through government takeover.

So, given that, what are you trying to get at with your statement?

The claim I was responding to was that we were assigning a dollar value to human lives- I claimed that was wrong, but rather we (or atleast I) were/was attempting to explain why health care was so expensive. The main idea is that the cost is determined by the very same market forces that determine the price for everything else- not evil corporation this or big business that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Just what do you think Jesus will say to those who support, maintain and implement those systems?

I think He will say, “Whatever you did to the least of these you did to Me.”

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have a daughter with sickle-cell anemia and a wife with bone degeneration who has already had one hip replacement, and I would gladly lose all of my worldly possessions to save either of them if I had to. What I have or own do not define who I am, and I am capable of rebuilding anything no matter what goes wrong. If I am too old, my other kids will have to take care of me. There is nothing wrong with the way things were in 1909. That’s why your supposed to have more than 2.11 children.

Then what do I do? My daughter died before birth and my son was illegally removed from my care - no I take that back, he was actually illegally removed from my custody before I ever had a chance to hold him (long story but basically his paternal grandparents blamed me for my husband’s death and “punished” me by lying about me to Social Services - they actually swore under oath that I had told them I was going to kill my son; my precious son whom I loved so much. This is what sometimes happens when the government intrudes into our lives). I had no other children, although there is some medical evidence that I had a second spontaneous abortion before I became pregnant with my son.

My husband died when he was 26 and, as I still loved him deeply (and still do) I did not feel it would be appropriate for me to remarry, especially if the reason I would remarry would be to obtain health insurance.

I have no children to help support me. I have no husband to help support me. Every penny I receive is from disability retirement and is enough to support me as long as I don’t have any sort of accident which would land me in the ER and as long as I don’t get really really ill. This does not mean that I believe government-run health insurance is a good idea - I see several problems with it.

What I’m saying here is that there is a segment of the population in the US who have nobody to rely on when it comes to health care. Who is going to sell their house for me? Nobody. Absolutely nobody.

I wish my husband were alive today and that my children were alive and healthy and living with me. It didn’t turn out that way and it causes a great sadness in my heart.

As the percentage of the population over the age of 65 increases (because of the baby boomers) the expense of health care falls upon a relatively smaller number of people (the children and grandchildren of the baby boomers).

Your last sentence makes me very sad. Aren’t we supposed to have children because they are a gift from a loving God? Aren’t we supposed to provide for them, raise and support them? Or are we supposed to reproduce in order to have children who will become slaves to us when we become old or ill?

 

[LittleSoldier]

WHO identified the very best health care system globally as the French. This is also a mix of *national *and private health care.

This is the first time (that I can remember) ever seeing the French system of health care even mentioned. I am going to try to find out more about the French system. Do you have any references that you would recommend to help me? I know I can google and bing it but sometimes it helps to have links and/or other references so that I don’t have to try to find out what is fact and what is simply belief.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer me!

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think the doctors price gouge, it’s more the drug makers. I think one of my mom’s chemo treatments cost something like $40,000 a month.

But how can you call it ‘price gouging’ if you don’t know how much it took to produce relative to the amount produced.

A drug requires the services of large numbers of physicians, biochemists, pharmacologists as well as support staff and labratories. That all costs money, which the companies pay out for years before the drug ever shows up on the market.

Next the drug must go through about 5 years of testing. Again, this costs money. And if the drug proves to be ineffective or dangerous, it can’t go to market and the money the company spent must now be rolled into the costs of developing the next drug.

So lets say it gets to market, and the pharam can now sell it. If the drug has a wide base of patients then all those production costs can be divided by a large number of patients, AND they can gain economies of scale in production, so drug cost is low.

If there are few patients that need this drug, then the costs of production must be divided among those very few patients, and the drug is only manufactured in small quatities. So the cost can be huge.

But that can hardly considered to be price gouging. That can only occur when large scale production is under way, but the price is kept artificially high.

Do you have any proof that such is occuring?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Nice twist, but any reasonable person knows that you’re just setting up a false imperative by pretending that the healthcare debate boils down to a binary choice between “doing something” and “doing nothing” wherein “doing something” is an absolute good and “doing nothing” is an absolute evil.

“Doing nothing” is a better alternative than euthanizing the terminally ill.
“Doing nothing” is better than forcing taxpayers to fund abortion.
“Doing nothing” is better than creating a gigantic government program that will end up costing more than our current system and still restrict necessary care based on a different set of criteria.

All I want is to be allowed to not participate in your nefarious plan. I am content to help people in other ways that don’t involve the government.

The real question, for me, is why you and those who support these kinds of programs are so willing to hurt other people by forcing them to do something they don’t want to do.

What is being done by people who don’t support nationalized (or state-run) medical insurance programs? I run across this all the time in these threads - people who don’t want the government to take their money and use it in ways that are morally unacceptable to the people providing the money. But I have never seen any poster say that he/she has contributed to a charity or other organization which provides health care for the poor (I may have missed some posts which address this question).

Please don’t construe this as any sort of attack on you and others who share your view. Heck, I share your view (at least partly).

**My question (to everybody) is:

What have you done to help people who need health care but are not able to afford insurance or the expense of the medical procedures they need? What I’m looking for are concrete examples and suggestions addressing this problem. What have you, personally, done??**

Is there a Catholic charity which helps poor people who need medical care? What about the City of Hope and the St. Jude hospitals? What have you, personally, done to help correct this problem??

 

[pathia]

Do you have any proof that such is occuring?

They are priced much lower in other countries, even in countries that do not have price fixing by the government.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you. You’ve summed up my point for me.

We ARE forced to do what we don’t want to do-- all the time. We are FORCED.
If you don’t do what your government tells you, they fine you, they take away your home, or they lock you in a cage.

The government forces us to pay taxes so it can take care of housing- yet, we still have homeless people.

The government forces us to pay taxes so it can keep waging a war on recreational drugs- but there are more kinds of recreational drugs now than ever, and even more people using then.

The government forces us to pay taxes so it can educate our children- but our schools are performing worse than ever.

And yet, you think it is a GOOD idea to hand over something like healthcare to these people on the basis that not enough people have healthcare now?

Do you really think the government will be able to do that? Do you really believe they won’t make it worse? Look around you! Do you see ANY evidence that the government does ANYTHING really well??
They can’t fix our schools, can’t help our homeless— for crying out loud, they can’t even fix our streets!

Wait- there is one thing they do very well-- they do hurt people very effectively. For example, they’re very good at waging war, putting people in prison, and taxing people into the ground.

And another thing…
read that last part of your quote again…

You are SUPPOSED to be worried about what others want!!!
When did you come to believe that you’re NOT supposed to be worried about what others want???

That’s one of the fundamentals of Christianity!

Look, the whole idea that the government is going to take care of the sick, the needy, the homeless, or the hungry is an affront to Christianity because it makes people believe that they no longer have a personal responsibility to help others!

You’re right to want to help the sick. You’re right to be angry at the current system because it fails to do so.
But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your responsibility to others is satisfied by giving the government more power.
If you want to help someone, then go help them.
If you don’t know how, or think you can’t, then go read the lives of the saints and see how so many of them managed to help others without ever getting the government involved.

Great post!! Wow - just great!! We (at least most of the people in this thread) are CHRISTIANS. What are we, as CHRISTIANS, supposed to do? What would Jesus do? This is what I have been trying to get at - see the last post I wrote before this one.

Therein lies the answer.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There should be no bail out the banks should of been allowed to fail ,and the mortages owed to failed banks forgiven since the entities that are owed dont exist. As for drug abuse, I have never been a fan of drug laws, if people want to get high they are going to get high whether or not we like it. But its your conservative side that is for more drug laws. Education is declining because of ****** local school boards. Schools should be teaching and have strict discilpline, corporal punishment should be brought back. I’m facing homelessness because a bank wouldn’t work with me and I got fired on a lie from my last job. “at will” employement law should be done away with, it haas run its course and isn’t usefull anymore.

Corporal punishment should be brought back?? My father had the same view, although he took it a bit further - he believed that lack of corporal punishment is responsible for all the evils in society. Kind of strange coming from a person who was very well-versed in psychological child abuse.

My mom (a person I have always loved dearly) used corporal punishment. It is partially because of her corporal punishment that I have had two jaw surgeries and am now in chronic pain and can find no health insurance plan (other than Medicare) that will provide coverage for my TMJD.

Have you really thought this through? Is violence ever the answer? Is it really OK to slap a little girl so hard across the face that her ears ring and her jaw hurts for days? Is it really even OK to smack children’s bottoms in order to teach them what is good? Have you ever been whipped? I have - it hurts!! It is extremely painful and what I remember is dropping to the floor in basically a fetal position with my hands and arms trying to cover my face.

Like probably most people of my age group I grew up with corporal punishment. And I see nothing good coming from it. All I see is permanent physical harm, humiliation, and confusion - why is someone I love and trust hurting me so much?

Can you even imagine Jesus smacking a little kid? Can you even imagine Jesus busting a little kid across the face? Jesus Himself was scourged. Can you even imagine Him whipping a little child?