Rationing and long lines

[belme1201]

No, they prefer things as they are......people dying because an HMO denied a procedure.....collusion by the FDA and pharmaceutical lobbyist that result in people getting killed by "approved" drugs, yet they fight "alternative" treatments tooth and nail. They scream about "frivolous" lawsuits, and yet they don't know exactly what is the percentage of such lawsuits compared to the actual legitimate lawsuits.

They scream about nanny gov't yet they just ignore how some private institutions act without oversight.

It is odd that they warn about the onus of a government employed bureaucrat coming between a doctor and a patient, but when the bureaucrat is working for an hmo or insurance company, it's no longer a problem. Do they dare address the insurance company employee's pay being based on how many claims they reject? The GOP will stop at nothing in lying their way to the status quo at the demand of their corporate bosses.

 

[Demwit]

Corporate bureaucrats are fine with the right wingnutz.
Those are minor gods to them.

 

[Good Luck]

See above responses.....my statements here and previously stand valid.

Stand valid? Your statements are popcorn farts in a stiff wind.

First, not once did I ever indicate I believe government regulation to be the only problem. Yet you tell me "To place the entire blame on the federal gov't is inaccurate." Of course it is inaccurate. But since I did not place the whole blame on government, refuting it is called a strawman argument.

Once again, government regulations are a HUGE factor. ("A" factor, as in not the only factor, get it? If not, look up your third grade teacher, maybe they can explain reading comprehension to you.)

Yes there are other factors, such as congress being in the pocket of big business, (and if you think the initial after their name makes a difference, then you are truly deluded) which happens to also control the big drug companies. Some regulations have been written to enhance the influence of big business on how new pharmaceuticals are approved. That is one of those pesky problem government regulations to which I refer when I say government regulations are a huge part of the problem. Do you care to point out any more specifics that support my argument?

You say they are going to "reform" these regulations? I say they are lying to you. They'll rewrite them, alright - so that Joe Taxpayer picks up the bill in a way these self same influences can continue to grow health care costs at 20%+ per year, but with different excuses. They'll change how we get fucked, but we'll still get fucked. And then fuck the people yet again by taxing their private health care benefits taxed to pay for this grand pickle-up-the-wazoo plan you are so happy about.

budgets for research are mostly taken up by the salaries for the researchers

In the first place, I think that statement to be an outright lie. Seen the price tag on a scanning electron microscope these days? Or a good chromatograph? How about a simply class III exhaust hood? Then there are the daily disposable supplies, filters, pipette tips, tetracycline impregnated agar, petri dishes and lids, gloves, needles, syringes, etc. etc. etc. to the tune of several thousand dollars per day for a single lab in a research facility. Then there are the costs of safely disposing of medical waste (costs which are, again, commonly increased by unnecessary over regulation.)

Case in point, federal regulations prevent medical waste from the hospital and clinics here, plus bio research waste from the university, being cheaply burned in a local cement plant - talking well over a 2000 degrees here. So it all has to be sent out of state to an "approved" medical waste treatment plant at 5 times the cost that (guess what?) then burns the waste at about the same temps that the cement plant would achieve. But do the feds care there is an equally efficient method available, at 1/5 the cost? Nope, they have their approved disposal facility list and that is that. Just one of a hundred ways which federal regulations end up driving up health care costs.


In the second place, it takes people to do research. Not only that, but for the types of breakthrough research needed to come up with a new cure for an incurable disease, it takes BRILLIANT people - the type of brain power that is very, very rare. We're talking congnitive abilites 3+ standard deviations above normal. If they are paid well for using their rare intellect to create a device, chemical, or procedure that ends up saving thousands lives in the future, or reducing the daily pain suffered by millions of people, who the fuck are you to complain about what their paychecks look like? It could be YOUR life that is saved by their rare cranial abilities. I know I can walk because of some of these bulging-forehead types. They earn what they make.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

grand pickle-up-the-wazoo plan you are so happy about.

I like that one!!

 

[uscitizen]

"In the second place, it takes people to do research. Not only that, but for the types of breakthrough research needed to come up with a new cure for an incurable disease, it takes BRILLIANT people - the type of brain power that is very, very rare. We're talking congnitive abilites 3+ standard deviations above normal. If they are paid well for using their rare intellect to create a device, chemical, or procedure that ends up saving thousands lives in the future, or reducing the daily pain suffered by millions of people, who the fuck are you to complain about what their paychecks look like? It could be YOUR life that is saved by their rare cranial abilities. I know I can walk because of some of these bulging-forehead types. They earn what they make."
//
Do those smart people make the big bucks or the execs of the company?

 

[belme1201]

.....AND the magic hand of Government stepping in here, would certainly provide this young friend more prompt and immediate service, I suppose? Is THAT what you think would happen differently, if government runs the show?

Again.... You emotively post some obscure individual sob story, as IF for some miraculous reason, the government assuming the role of responsibility, would prevent this from ever being the case!

In a government-run system, the scenario would be the same, with the exception of... we filled out dozens of forms before waiting three hours to be told to go somewheres else in the morning.... and in the morning.... we filled out the same forms again today.... etc. In other words, you are NOT going to fix the problems with health care, by turning it over to people who don't know the first thing about solving problems!

Was your story about the Russian lady "emotively" posting "some obscure individual sob story" looking for your "magic hand"? Would you include your UAB example as a "government-run system" with the "same scenario"? You are a hypocrite who'll say anything to fit your "thought" of the moment. As long as it suits your purpose, anything goes. It goes right along with your general running off that you would use a, hated by you, government entity as your example of the high quality of the US healthcare system. The sad part is that you don't recognize the comedy.
The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency.

 

[apple0154]

That is one of my central points: that despite the heavy - and costly - federal regulations in place, the same kinds of mistakes are being made. That tells me (and anyone who actually thinks for themselves rather than depending on mommy government to do it for them) that the regulations currently in place are pretty much useless.

We have regulations that delay the introduction of pharmaceuticals by as much as a decade - yet new drugs with bad side effects keep popping up and are later withdrawn. We have regulations (supposedly) keeping track of bad medical decisions, yet nothing happens from the data that federal regulations mandate medical facilities gather and report. We have regulations requiring minimum levels of malpractice insurance (Side note - nowhere did I mention frivolous lawsuits, did I?) creating an artificially inflated market for the insurance companies. Yet we have doctors practicing who should not be practicing because all the malpractice industry does is get injured people (and some not-so-injured people, but that is not my point) large (sometime overly large, but again is not my point) settlements while doing NOTHING to address the problem of malpractice itself (and THAT is my point).

In short, the problems lie in the fact that we have innumerable regulations and other factors keeping a bunch of D.C. fat asses employed on the public ticket, keeping ambulance chasing lawyers in their BMWs; all factors in creating vast expenses for the medical industry that are, by necessity, passed onto the consumer; while there is little to no demonstrable GOOD coming from these self same regulations and infrastructures to justify the added costs of medical treatment in our society.

I do not object to regulations on the pharmaceutical industry, medical equipment industry, etc. It keep out the snake oil salesmen. But when there are so many regulations and requirements that, in the end, do nothing but add to the development costs of a new medical technology, then the regulations, how they affect medical research, how they affect costs, and if they achieve their purpose all needs to be closely examined.

As for conjecture, I asked (did you see the question mark? do you know what a question mark signifies?) if it is possible that the degree and type of some regulations could possibly lead to more mistakes being made, rather than fewer. It is entirely possible that valid research methods are being compromised because a regulation is poorly written thus requiring use of a less valid procedure to meet some federal requirements.

It is far from meaningless to ask such things. Asking whether some regulations result in more harm is a valid question to ask. Asking questions about where problems stem from is the first step in actual reform. We ARE talking about reform, right? (Oh, I forget. "Health care reform" is supposed to mean how much MORE regulations and interference should the government add to the mess.)

Your arguments are exactly why the entire industry has to be taken over by the government. Currently, it is a piece-meal approach. Look at the financial industry for the perfect piece-meal example.

There were plenty of financial regulations in place but someone came along and thought up another "financial product" which was, basically, throwing bits of garbage in with good financial products and selling a pig-in-a-poke.

If there's money to be made someone will find a way to screw around with the medical system. Then, after some calamity, the governemt will step in and rush to impose some control without thinking it through.

The argument one can not trust government to run things and keep them safe is truly absurd. We trust the government to control nuclear material, deadly viruses, etc.

There's the old saying, "When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible." That's the free enterprise, medical system.

It's time for a change.

 

[apple0154]

Oops. Double post.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Was your story about the Russian lady "emotively" posting "some obscure individual sob story" looking for your "magic hand"? Would you include your UAB example as a "government-run system" with the "same scenario"? You are a hypocrite who'll say anything to fit your "thought" of the moment. As long as it suits your purpose, anything goes. It goes right along with your general running off that you would use a, hated by you, government entity as your example of the high quality of the US healthcare system. The sad part is that you don't recognize the comedy.
The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency.

I don't know what planet you live on, but University of Alabama-Birmingham Health System, is NOT a government-run entity. The UAB Health System is a partnership between UAB and the University of Alabama Health Services Foundation (UAHSF). The UAHSF is a private, not-for-profit medical practice made up of the faculty of the UAB School of Medicine.The UAB Health System is governed by a board of directors which has representatives of the UAHSF, the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, and UAB administrators. The UAB President is the ex officio chairperson of the UAB Health System. The CEO of the UAB Health System reports directly to the UAB Health System board and is appointed by the chairman of the board.

My story was a representation of thousands, who have come from all over the world for treatment at UAB. I wasn't using the Russian lady to pull on your emotive heart strings, just to convey a point. One that obviously flew comfortably over your empty pinhead.

The supposed discussion here, is about turning over health insurance to the government, and allowing government to basically control health care in America. Hospitals affiliated with state universities, are so far removed from this concept, it isn't even worthy of a response. You are trying to point to UAB and claim we already have government-run health care, and that is just a dishonest lie, which is what your side has become really good at! No, it's not ME who will "say or do anything" it is YOU!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your arguments are exactly why the entire industry has to be taken over by the government. Currently, it is a piece-meal approach. Look at the financial industry for the perfect piece-meal example.

There were plenty of financial regulations in place but someone came along and thought up another "financial product" which was, basically, throwing bits of garbage in with good financial products and selling a pig-in-a-poke.

If there's money to be made someone will find a way to screw around with the medical system. Then, after some calamity, the governemt will step in and rush to impose some control without thinking it through.

The argument one can not trust government to run things and keep them safe is truly absurd. We trust the government to control nuclear material, deadly viruses, etc.

There's the old saying, "When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible." That's the free enterprise, medical system.

It's time for a change.

It is just a miracle that people as retarded as you can actually type! You have been pumped so full of koolaid and bullshit, you are in danger of exploding! Nothing anyone has to say to you is of any use, as your response will be to open your mouth and allow some of that koolaid and bullshit to spew out uncontrollably.

Government taking over the system is NOT going to FIX the system, stupid! Can you not comprehend this? Nothing the government can do, will FIX all the assorted problems making health care unaffordable and inconvenient. In fact, expect the problems to get WORSE under the purview of government, because unlike private enterprise, government doesn't give a shit if you are satisfied with the service or not.

What is even more bizarre, is how you introduce the financial crisis here, as an example of how the government stepped in to save the day!! Does it even register in your otherwise vacant brain, that government was the CAUSE of the financial problems to begin with? That Freddie and Fannie were churning along just fine and dandy, until Barney Frank and Chris Dodd decided it would be so nice if we could put people in homes they could never afford! It was the exact same liberal pinheads pulling at our heart strings, with the exact same emotive liberal bullshit, which led to easing restrictions on lenders, and in fact, demanding those lenders make loans to unqualified people, because.... it was the nice thing to do!

The challenge is still standing, not a one of you pinhead liberal idiots has even attempted to take me on! Military excluded, give me ONE example where Government has provided a BETTER (demonstratively) alternative than the private sector?

 

[DamnYankee]

You really have a problem admitting you're wrong don't you?

You may have a point about Canadians using US hospitals but insisting you have wards full of cancerous cockneys is just making you look a bit daft.

Actually, what I have a problem with is you taking a caricature of my argument then trying to make me "admit" that the argument is then wrong. *shrug*

 

[charver]

Actually, what I have a problem with is you taking a caricature of my argument then trying to make me "admit" that the argument is then wrong. *shrug*

Well, i'm not one of these sad individuals who will drag a thread on for a matter of weeks arguing about something pointless so you can insist you're right if you like.

I'm off to fiddle about with some other threads.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well, i'm not one of these sad individuals who will drag a thread on for a matter of weeks arguing about something pointless so you can insist you're right if you like.

I'm off to fiddle about with some other threads.

No need to be a prude about it. *shrug*

 

[belme1201]

I don't know what planet you live on, but University of Alabama-Birmingham Health System, is NOT a government-run entity. The UAB Health System is a partnership between UAB and the University of Alabama Health Services Foundation (UAHSF). The UAHSF is a private, not-for-profit medical practice made up of the faculty of the UAB School of Medicine.The UAB Health System is governed by a board of directors which has representatives of the UAHSF, the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, and UAB administrators. The UAB President is the ex officio chairperson of the UAB Health System. The CEO of the UAB Health System reports directly to the UAB Health System board and is appointed by the chairman of the board.

My story was a representation of thousands, who have come from all over the world for treatment at UAB. I wasn't using the Russian lady to pull on your emotive heart strings, just to convey a point. One that obviously flew comfortably over your empty pinhead.

The supposed discussion here, is about turning over health insurance to the government, and allowing government to basically control health care in America. Hospitals affiliated with state universities, are so far removed from this concept, it isn't even worthy of a response. You are trying to point to UAB and claim we already have government-run health care, and that is just a dishonest lie, which is what your side has become really good at! No, it's not ME who will "say or do anything" it is YOU!

Peddle your gobbledegook elsewhere! UAB Is State funded and accepts both State and Federal funds. Whether it be State or Federal, it is a governmental entity. UAHSF/UAB is not for-profit, proving my point. It's interesting you couldn't find a Frist type private, for-profit system to support your viewpoint that the Free Market, for-profit system is the way to run a healthcare system.(To attract Brits.)
You used the Russian lady in the exact same way that you criticised someone else for doing the same thing, however, your bi-level thought in justification is not surprising.
I must say though, that your cyber-bravado is amusing. Thanks.

I would like to add a question. If, as it is to some, the market-based system is best, why is it that in most areas, a not-for-profit, publicly funded university hospital is considered the finest available in that area?

 

[Thorn]

Stand valid? Your statements are popcorn farts in a stiff wind.

First, not once did I ever indicate I believe government regulation to be the only problem. Yet you tell me "To place the entire blame on the federal gov't is inaccurate." Of course it is inaccurate. But since I did not place the whole blame on government, refuting it is called a strawman argument.

Once again, government regulations are a HUGE factor. ("A" factor, as in not the only factor, get it? If not, look up your third grade teacher, maybe they can explain reading comprehension to you.)

Yes there are other factors, such as congress being in the pocket of big business, (and if you think the initial after their name makes a difference, then you are truly deluded) which happens to also control the big drug companies. Some regulations have been written to enhance the influence of big business on how new pharmaceuticals are approved. That is one of those pesky problem government regulations to which I refer when I say government regulations are a huge part of the problem. Do you care to point out any more specifics that support my argument?

You say they are going to "reform" these regulations? I say they are lying to you. They'll rewrite them, alright - so that Joe Taxpayer picks up the bill in a way these self same influences can continue to grow health care costs at 20%+ per year, but with different excuses. They'll change how we get fucked, but we'll still get fucked. And then fuck the people yet again by taxing their private health care benefits taxed to pay for this grand pickle-up-the-wazoo plan you are so happy about.


In the first place, I think that statement to be an outright lie. Seen the price tag on a scanning electron microscope these days? Or a good chromatograph? How about a simply class III exhaust hood? Then there are the daily disposable supplies, filters, pipette tips, tetracycline impregnated agar, petri dishes and lids, gloves, needles, syringes, etc. etc. etc. to the tune of several thousand dollars per day for a single lab in a research facility. Then there are the costs of safely disposing of medical waste (costs which are, again, commonly increased by unnecessary over regulation.)

Case in point, federal regulations prevent medical waste from the hospital and clinics here, plus bio research waste from the university, being cheaply burned in a local cement plant - talking well over a 2000 degrees here. So it all has to be sent out of state to an "approved" medical waste treatment plant at 5 times the cost that (guess what?) then burns the waste at about the same temps that the cement plant would achieve. But do the feds care there is an equally efficient method available, at 1/5 the cost? Nope, they have their approved disposal facility list and that is that. Just one of a hundred ways which federal regulations end up driving up health care costs.


In the second place, it takes people to do research. Not only that, but for the types of breakthrough research needed to come up with a new cure for an incurable disease, it takes BRILLIANT people - the type of brain power that is very, very rare. We're talking congnitive abilites 3+ standard deviations above normal. If they are paid well for using their rare intellect to create a device, chemical, or procedure that ends up saving thousands lives in the future, or reducing the daily pain suffered by millions of people, who the fuck are you to complain about what their paychecks look like? It could be YOUR life that is saved by their rare cranial abilities. I know I can walk because of some of these bulging-forehead types. They earn what they make.

Very good points. I made some more not long after I joined, but don't have the time to locate the post now.

... and BTW thanks for the "brilliant" part ...

 

[Demwit]

One point to make about the waiting list in canada for hip replacement surgery but the USA is prompt on this.

Most all hip replacement surgeries in the USA that are done are paid for by medicare. A govt run medical care endeavor. And some say the govt can't run medical care. The VA? Medicaid? CHIPS?

 

[Taichiliberal]

It is odd that they warn about the onus of a government employed bureaucrat coming between a doctor and a patient, but when the bureaucrat is working for an hmo or insurance company, it's no longer a problem. Do they dare address the insurance company employee's pay being based on how many claims they reject? The GOP will stop at nothing in lying their way to the status quo at the demand of their corporate bosses.

And let's not forget that those who are fortunate enough to have good coverage and are screaming the neocon mantras basically just don't give a good God damn about anyone else. Of course, a lot of that mindset changed after the S&L scandal, Enron, and the Wall St./banker debacle of recent.....unemployment and an empty bank account opens a LOT of eyes.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Stand valid? Your statements are popcorn farts in a stiff wind. Hold onto your hats, folk...this neocon parrot is swelling up to let out a LOT of HOT AIR!

First, not once did I ever indicate I believe government regulation to be the only problem. Yet you tell me "To place the entire blame on the federal gov't is inaccurate." Of course it is inaccurate. But since I did not place the whole blame on government, refuting it is called a strawman argument.

Either you're lying or you have a very short memory. Here's a quote from you....if you're not referring to the federal gov't, then who? ....In short, the problems lie in the fact that we have innumerable regulations and other factors keeping a bunch of D.C. fat asses employed on the public ticket, keeping ambulance chasing lawyers in their BMWs;
Once again, government regulations are a HUGE factor. ("A" factor, as in not the only factor, get it? If not, look up your third grade teacher, maybe they can explain reading comprehension to you.) Once again, you need to stop braying like an ass and actually read what YOU wrote. Like the example I presented above, you continually skew the vast majority (if not all, in some instances) of the blame on gov't regulation. I addressed each point you gave individually....to try and portray ALL my responses as you do above REGARDLESS of what you wrote is a lie, because the recorded post shows this is not the case.

Yes there are other factors, such as congress being in the pocket of big business, (and if you think the initial after their name makes a difference, then you are truly deluded) I never said or alluded to any such attitude, you nit. Please stop wasting time and space pulling stuff out of your ass that the recorded posts instantly proves bogus which happens to also control the big drug companies. Some regulations have been written to enhance the influence of big business on how new pharmaceuticals are approved. That is one of those pesky problem government regulations to which I refer when I say government regulations are a huge part of the problem. Do you care to point out any more specifics that support my argument? Once again, either you purposely just forget everything that previously transpired or you are truly stupid. Here is just ONE of my quotes where I make the point you are now parroting and falsely trying to introduce as "new" And THAT is the fault of the FDA and the Pharmaceutical companies....outsourcing certain lab work to companies that are coincidently financed by the pharmaceuticals....congressional lobbying by pharmaceuticals to pass regulations that hinder certain FDA protocols.

You say they are going to "reform" these regulations? I say they are lying to you. They'll rewrite them, alright - so that Joe Taxpayer picks up the bill in a way these self same influences can continue to grow health care costs at 20%+ per year, but with different excuses. They'll change how we get fucked, but we'll still get fucked. And then fuck the people yet again by taxing their private health care benefits taxed to pay for this grand pickle-up-the-wazoo plan you are so happy about.

In other words, you've got nothing but opinion, supposition and conjecture that you are trying to pass off as FACT. Sorry toodles, but judging by your inability to honestly and/or accurately debate, the Amazing Kreskin has nothing to fear from you.


In the first place, I think that statement to be an outright lie. Seen the price tag on a scanning electron microscope these days? Or a good chromatograph? How about a simply class III exhaust hood? Then there are the daily disposable supplies, filters, pipette tips, tetracycline impregnated agar, petri dishes and lids, gloves, needles, syringes, etc. etc. etc. to the tune of several thousand dollars per day for a single lab in a research facility. Then there are the costs of safely disposing of medical waste (costs which are, again, commonly increased by unnecessary over regulation.)

Once again, when you can't win a argument, you try to detour to another topic. You briefly alluded to this sidebar before......here was my response, that you now try to ignore;

Good luck: I do not object to regulations on the pharmaceutical industry, medical equipment industry, etc. It keep out the snake oil salesmen. But when there are so many regulations and requirements that, in the end, do nothing but add to the development costs of a new medical technology, then the regulations, how they affect medical research, how they affect costs, and if they achieve their purpose all needs to be closely examined.

Taichiliberal: That is not wholly true....do some research and you'll see that budgets for research are mostly taken up by the salaries for the researchers......case in point, doctors and medical scientist becoming millionaires on AIDS research....pharamceutical patents that rake in BIG bucks for the companies producing them.

Case in point, federal regulations prevent medical waste from the hospital and clinics here, plus bio research waste from the university, being cheaply burned in a local cement plant - talking well over a 2000 degrees here. So it all has to be sent out of state to an "approved" medical waste treatment plant at 5 times the cost that (guess what?) then burns the waste at about the same temps that the cement plant would achieve. But do the feds care there is an equally efficient method available, at 1/5 the cost? Nope, they have their approved disposal facility list and that is that. Just one of a hundred ways which federal regulations end up driving up health care costs.

So we are to assume that your local cement plant was up to specs to safely burn medical wastes? You don't say that, you just say it's "equally efficient". Sorry to burst your bubble, but medical waste is not the same as burning refuse from a construction site. Here is an example....if you can factually prove your cement plant met the specs, then please do. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...ncineration&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8


In the second place, it takes people to do research. Not only that, but for the types of breakthrough research needed to come up with a new cure for an incurable disease, it takes BRILLIANT people - the type of brain power that is very, very rare. We're talking congnitive abilites 3+ standard deviations above normal. If they are paid well for using their rare intellect to create a device, chemical, or procedure that ends up saving thousands lives in the future, or reducing the daily pain suffered by millions of people, who the fuck are you to complain about what their paychecks look like? It could be YOUR life that is saved by their rare cranial abilities. I know I can walk because of some of these bulging-forehead types. They earn what they make.

Wake up jackass! If the majority of the money is being spent making researchers millionaires, then HOW MUCH MONEY IS LEFT OVER FOR ALL THE MATERIALS AND SUCH THAT YOU JUST PREVIOUSLY LISTED? As you pointed out, those electron microscopes don't come cheap....they didn't 30 years ago and they don't now. Check out some of the budgets for AIDS research...what percentage goes to actual research material, and what goes to salaries. I've got no problem with people being adequately compensated....but there is such a thing as EXCESSIVE GREED. The surgeon that saved my brother's life bitched to me about this.....he was quite comfortable with his salary (no piker by any means)....yet he'll tell you that the real money is in research grants, where the bills are seriously padded. But do some research on what Dr. Peter Deussberg has to say on the subject...that's an eye opener!

 

[Demwit]

How much of their research is actually done by taxpayer money at either NIH or universities?

 

[DamnYankee]

Wake up jackass! If the majority of the money is being spent making researchers millionaires, then HOW MUCH MONEY IS LEFT OVER FOR ALL THE MATERIALS AND SUCH THAT YOU JUST PREVIOUSLY LISTED? ...

LOL typical Liberal misunderstanding of basic modern economics. How does one person's wealth detract from others?