A good example of why southern conservatives are not trusted.

[Mott the Hoople]

look, I know its' a lot to expect that you would actually have an understanding of what our argument with apple has been about, but let's just leave it at this.....if you knew what we were talking about you wouldn't have posted what you just posted.....if you didn't know what we were talking about you shouldn't have posted what you just posted.....fair enough?....

PiMP you're such a dumbass. I mean you're so uninformed on this topic it's staggering. First, no sane person wants any body to set the value of their services but your operating from a false premis here. That the health care market is a free market when that has never, ever been the case. Health care practitioners have always to some extent had the cost of their services regulated. Not only that but they even attempt to regulate themselves. You just can't go out in the health care market and charge what the market will bear as you will ultimately deny services to those in need, what would be considered in medical practice, a major ethical lapse. Just as you cannot go out in our society and deny a starving person a loaf of bread because they don't have $1000 to pay for it.

One of the major false assumptions you are making is that our publicly funded hospitals and clinics (and the vast majority are publicly funded) are to be operated as low over head cost facilities for physicians. These facilities have every right in the world to control the costs of labor and wages and to set those at reasonable levels and if the physicians and staff do not like that then they are quite free to go into private practice or to work some where else.

The same is true with big Pharma. Most of the basic and applied research they need to develop products is publicly funded. If they want access to that data to develop and market their products then we, the public, have the right to place limits on what they can charge for their products or we have the right to with hold that data from them if the do not wish to agree to those conditions. They are more than free to pay for that cost themselves.

That's free association.

 

[apple0154]

So, in your world; the Government offers a business a price and they either have to accept it or not!! You still haven't shown where you said anything about Now, can you show me where you said a single word about the Government "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE", in your original offering.

No, I didn't specifically say "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE" but I did say I thought you'd understand that. Obviously, I assumed, incorrectly I might add, that you would understand that.

So, yes, I'm guilty of assuming you have reasonable comprehension abilities.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

PiMP you're such a dumbass. I mean you're so uninformed on this topic it's staggering. First, no sane person wants any body to set the value of their services but your operating from a false premis here. That the health care market is a free market when that has never, ever been the case. Health care practitioners have always to some extent had the cost of their services regulated. Not only that but they even attempt to regulate themselves. You just can't go out in the health care market and charge what the market will bear as you will ultimately deny services to those in need, what would be considered in medical practice, a major ethical lapse. Just as you cannot go out in our society and deny a starving person a loaf of bread because they don't have $1000 to pay for it.

One of the major false assumptions you are making is that our publicly funded hospitals and clinics (and the vast majority are publicly funded) are to be operated as low over head cost facilities for physicians. These facilities have every right in the world to control the costs of labor and wages and to set those at reasonable levels and if the physicians and staff do not like that then they are quite free to go into private practice or to work some where else.

The same is true with big Pharma. Most of the basic and applied research they need to develop products is publicly funded. If they want access to that data to develop and market their products then we, the public, have the right to place limits on what they can charge for their products or we have the right to with hold that data from them if the do not wish to agree to those conditions. They are more than free to pay for that cost themselves.

That's free association.

Good lord, you're even dumber than I thought....why the fuck would you think I am arguing that public hospitals should be cheap facilities for doctors or drug companies to operate.....what you seem to ignore is the fact that universal health care isn't a means to create lots of public hospitals....it's the means to transfer control of lots of public hospitals away from the boards of lots of local people into control by the federal government....

you say that no sane person wants any one to set the value of their services....that is true, but liberals, not being sane persons, DO want government panels to set the value of all the services provided in the health industry.....and we aren't just talking about the services provided in public hospitals or even in ghetto clinics....we're talking about the services provided in the hospital in your town, the services provided in the office of the doctor you use, the services provided anywhere for everything....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So, in your world; the Government offers a business a price and they either have to accept it or not!! You still haven't shown where you said anything about Now, can you show me where you said a single word about the Government "OFFERING A COMPETITIVE PRICE", in your original offering.

Have you ever worked a government contract before? The government never offers a price unless the product or service being sought by the government is the intellectual property of a private person or entity. If it's not, they just send out an RFP listing the performance criteria for that particular project or service. You, the vendor, then make a bid to provide that product or service. Low bid wins. (at least in theory)

If the product or service needed by the government is proprietary then the government offers a price. Now when the government offers a prices their speaking for many millions of people, i.e. millions of customers. That allows them to bring an economy of scale to bear that permits them to negotiate pricing downward and it's a very stupid business man who isn't quite aware of that. On the other hand, if the price offered isn't "competitive", that is the vendor would lose money or make a viable profit, then they are quite free to turn down the governments offer. What we are presently seeing is legislation from previous administrations put in place which artificially prevents the government from using their position and the economy of scale they can bring to bear to negotiate a reduction of cost, so that Big Pharma can maximize profits.

My question for you, is what is wrong with removing these artificial restrictions so that our government can negotiate cost reductions based on the economy of scale they can bring to bear?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

My question for you, is what is wrong with removing these artificial restrictions so that our government can negotiate cost reductions based on the economy of scale they can bring to bear?

what's wrong with it is that it isn't the government's liver or virus that needs attention, it's the patient's....the government shouldn't be the one deciding who has bid the lowest price to look at my liver......

and since we are talking about UNIVERSAL health care don't feed me some line about having options to go elsewhere, because everyone "elsewhere" is under the same government regulation......

 

[apple0154]

yes, there is the distinction......it is wrong for a government panel to set YOUR income....it's okay to set somebody else's......

It depends on ones job. My services were not a life-and-death matter such as those of doctors.

 

[apple0154]

I find it convenient that the older, cheaper version happens to be as effective in treating the illness....I think in real life pharmaceutical companies spend very little time developing new drugs that don't do something different than what is already being done cheaper....

Occasionally they do but most are improvements on old ones. Check out the cold pill selection in your local drug store.

 

[apple0154]

because they aren't offering them to the government.....they are offering them to people with illnesses who should be the ones making the choice what they want to use....

The people do make the choice and the government decides what it will cover.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

what's wrong with it is that it isn't the government's liver or virus that needs attention, it's the patient's....the government shouldn't be the one deciding who has bid the lowest price to look at my liver......

and since we are talking about UNIVERSAL health care don't feed me some line about having options to go elsewhere, because everyone "elsewhere" is under the same government regulation......

Straw man. That's not what I said. Again, you don't know what your talking about. All the modern industrialized nations, except the USA, has UHC and they all have medical practitioners in private practice and your more then free to utilize their services as long as you can pay their prices and as long as your not accepting public payment your not obligated to meet those government regulations either. So that's a strawman too.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It depends on ones job. My services were not a life-and-death matter such as those of doctors.

You weren't working for the tax payers either were you? That is, your employer was not publicly funded, were they?

 

[apple0154]

Good lord, you're even dumber than I thought....why the fuck would you think I am arguing that public hospitals should be cheap facilities for doctors or drug companies to operate.....what you seem to ignore is the fact that universal health care isn't a means to create lots of public hospitals....it's the means to transfer control of lots of public hospitals away from the boards of lots of local people into control by the federal government....

you say that no sane person wants any one to set the value of their services....that is true, but liberals, not being sane persons, DO want government panels to set the value of all the services provided in the health industry.....and we aren't just talking about the services provided in public hospitals or even in ghetto clinics....we're talking about the services provided in the hospital in your town, the services provided in the office of the doctor you use, the services provided anywhere for everything....

You really have no idea, do you? With universal medical the government sets a price for a certain procedure. If a doctor and a hospital want to do the procedure for that price the government pays them. If they don't want to do the procedure for that price the government doesn't pay them. It's as simple as that.

The reason hospitals and doctors fight against universal medical is because they know people will choose the government option. The key word here being "option". The people decide. Do they want to spend a few days in a hospital with modern decor and manicured lawns and pay for it themselves or do they just want a comfortable bed and the necessary treatment and then go home without a bill? Guess what. Most would choose the latter and the doctors and hospitals know that. That's one reason they're against universal medical.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Good lord, you're even dumber than I thought....why the fuck would you think I am arguing that public hospitals should be cheap facilities for doctors or drug companies to operate.....what you seem to ignore is the fact that universal health care isn't a means to create lots of public hospitals....it's the means to transfer control of lots of public hospitals away from the boards of lots of local people into control by the federal government....

you say that no sane person wants any one to set the value of their services....that is true, but liberals, not being sane persons, DO want government panels to set the value of all the services provided in the health industry.....and we aren't just talking about the services provided in public hospitals or even in ghetto clinics....we're talking about the services provided in the hospital in your town, the services provided in the office of the doctor you use, the services provided anywhere for everything....

Again you simply don't know what the fuck you are talking about. UHC has nothing to do with how hospitals operate or the local conditions by which they operate and those are all ready heavily regulated under the Federal Registrar by the Federal government and at the State level by board of health not to mention accreditation requirements, which I assure you are not local. In other words that level of control ALL READY EXIST. Jesus PiMP have you done any home work on this subject?

UHC reform is about how health care will be financed in this nation. Not how health care facilities will operate.

 

[apple0154]

You weren't working for the tax payers either were you? That is, your employer was not publicly funded, were they?

Yes, as a matter of fact, they were.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You really have no idea, do you? With universal medical the government sets a price for a certain procedure. If a doctor and a hospital want to do the procedure for that price the government pays them. If they don't want to do the procedure for that price the government doesn't pay them. It's as simple as that.

The reason hospitals and doctors fight against universal medical is because they know people will choose the government option. The key word here being "option". The people decide. Do they want to spend a few days in a hospital with modern decor and manicured lawns and pay for it themselves or do they just want a comfortable bed and the necessary treatment and then go home without a bill? Guess what. Most would choose the latter and the doctors and hospitals know that. That's one reason they're against universal medical.

That's a gross over simplification but is essentially correct. The American public wants to have quality health care services available in times of need with out having to live in fear that they will go bankrupt due to illness or injury or be denied life saving services because they are unable to pay. The public is willing to make the compromises to achieve this goal.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yes, as a matter of fact, they were.

That's a horse of a different color then. It didn't really matter if your services were life or death services.

 

[apple0154]

That's a gross over simplification but is essentially correct. The American public wants to have quality health care services available in times of need with out having to live in fear that they will go bankrupt due to illness or injury or be denied life saving services because they are unable to pay. The public is willing to make the compromises to achieve this goal.

It really does boil down to that. Medical facilities advertise like 4-star hotels. Who the hell cares what the lobby of the facility looks like when they require medical attention or if the window coverings match the bedspread.

 

[apple0154]

That's a horse of a different color then. It didn't really matter if your services were life or death services.

Some countries with universal plans subsidize medical training. The student graduates without a massive student loan to pay which results in them being able to work for less.

The whole problem with people opposed to universal medical is they want the system to stay the same with a few adjustments. In the end that accomplishes nothing.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It really does boil down to that. Medical facilities advertise like 4-star hotels. Who the hell cares what the lobby of the facility looks like when they require medical attention or if the window coverings match the bedspread.

I see nothing wrong with those sort of accomadations from private sector stand point. If you want to pay for that fine. But I think that's hyperbole. over 80% of the hospitals in this nation are Publicly funded and I haven't seen to many advertising at all let alone advertising those kinds of ammenities. Though....I must admit...having been in the hospital...it aint going to break the national bank if they serve some decent food.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Some countries with universal plans subsidize medical training. The student graduates without a massive student loan to pay which results in them being able to work for less.

The whole problem with people opposed to universal medical is they want the system to stay the same with a few adjustments. In the end that accomplishes nothing.

Well as I stated in another thread. I would have jumped on such an oppurtunity. I dropped out of med school after my first year cause I just couldn't afford it and wasn't willing to accept the level of debt I would have had to of in order to have completed my medical education and go into practice.

 

[apple0154]

I see nothing wrong with those sort of accomadations from private sector stand point. If you want to pay for that fine. But I think that's hyperbole. over 80% of the hospitals in this nation are Publicly funded and I haven't seen to many advertising at all let alone advertising those kinds of ammenities. Though....I must admit...having been in the hospital...it aint going to break the national bank if they serve some decent food.

Talking about decent food we have a few major hospitals here such as the General, the Catholic, the Jewish, etc. When my family doctor sends me for tests he always asks which hospital I prefer. If it's not blood tests or other tests requiring fasting I always choose the Jewish. The pastries in the coffee shop are to die for!!