|
On June 22 2011 10:35 Tremendous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:27 Tremendous wrote:I feel like there are some misunderstandings as to what a socialized healthcare system actualy means and what the governments role in it is. The governments DOES NOT run the hospitals, they also have no say direct say in the treatment of patients. The government provides FUNDING and oversight. They dont have gestapo-ish stormtroopers walking the halls telling the doctors who they can treat and who that cant treat. The idea that the cost of a universal healthcare system is much higher then a privatized system is also untrue. In fact, most EU countries with a universal healthcare system spend less pr. capita on healthcare than the US, because the systems end up simpler because you cut out a lot of the buracracy the costs go down signeficantly. fx. Take the Danish system http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279Universal healthcare isnt a scary communist buggyman or an enormous cashsink. i also imagine the insurance that hospitals have to pay outside of the US is much cheaper due to the significantly (assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) lower amount of lawsuits (as well as the lack of lawsuits themselves, let alone the insurance) Indeed. When doctors dont have to worry about the cost of the treatments then they will provide the best possible help they can. Also, as they dont feel obligated to "cut corners" for the insurance companies there are a lot less problems with people getting poor treatment.
Much better formulated than I could do it.
Not to say our system is perfect though. We still do have a significant amount of private hospitals, and the public hospitals are right now experiencing budget cuts like crazy. Then again, so is the rest of the country, because of some bad political decisions leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis. Not to say the opposition would be any better at it, but the country is in a rough spot right now.
Tremendous' points still stand though.
|
On June 22 2011 10:37 Kiarip wrote:
America shouldn't get public healthcare, because we can't afford it since we're in a deficit, and once if ever we get out of it, no it's not a top priority concern. We don't need more government it's already huge.
We could always call our World War II and World War I debts from the allied powers.
I know Britain paid the US back for World War II (Thank you guys, Brits always have class I say, big fan).
|
On June 22 2011 11:20 DerNebel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:35 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 10:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:27 Tremendous wrote:I feel like there are some misunderstandings as to what a socialized healthcare system actualy means and what the governments role in it is. The governments DOES NOT run the hospitals, they also have no say direct say in the treatment of patients. The government provides FUNDING and oversight. They dont have gestapo-ish stormtroopers walking the halls telling the doctors who they can treat and who that cant treat. The idea that the cost of a universal healthcare system is much higher then a privatized system is also untrue. In fact, most EU countries with a universal healthcare system spend less pr. capita on healthcare than the US, because the systems end up simpler because you cut out a lot of the buracracy the costs go down signeficantly. fx. Take the Danish system http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279Universal healthcare isnt a scary communist buggyman or an enormous cashsink. i also imagine the insurance that hospitals have to pay outside of the US is much cheaper due to the significantly (assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) lower amount of lawsuits (as well as the lack of lawsuits themselves, let alone the insurance) Indeed. When doctors dont have to worry about the cost of the treatments then they will provide the best possible help they can. Also, as they dont feel obligated to "cut corners" for the insurance companies there are a lot less problems with people getting poor treatment. Much better formulated than I could do it. Not to say our system is perfect though. We still do have a significant amount of private hospitals, and the public hospitals are right now experiencing budget cuts like crazy. Then again, so is the rest of the country, because of some bad political decisions leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis. Not to say the opposition would be any better at it, but the country is in a rough spot right now. Tremendous' points still stand though.
When doctors don't have to worry about cost of treatment, they will provide the most expensive help they can. You may call this "best possible help," but in many cases, the odds of better health outcomes is low to non-existent. It's actually a good thing many European countries are willing to make the unpopular decision to curb health care costs. Otherwise, you really will end up with the fucked up American system, where it's simply not feasible to widen health care coverage because it's so damn expensive.
|
On June 22 2011 11:33 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:20 DerNebel wrote:On June 22 2011 10:35 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 10:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:27 Tremendous wrote:I feel like there are some misunderstandings as to what a socialized healthcare system actualy means and what the governments role in it is. The governments DOES NOT run the hospitals, they also have no say direct say in the treatment of patients. The government provides FUNDING and oversight. They dont have gestapo-ish stormtroopers walking the halls telling the doctors who they can treat and who that cant treat. The idea that the cost of a universal healthcare system is much higher then a privatized system is also untrue. In fact, most EU countries with a universal healthcare system spend less pr. capita on healthcare than the US, because the systems end up simpler because you cut out a lot of the buracracy the costs go down signeficantly. fx. Take the Danish system http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279Universal healthcare isnt a scary communist buggyman or an enormous cashsink. i also imagine the insurance that hospitals have to pay outside of the US is much cheaper due to the significantly (assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) lower amount of lawsuits (as well as the lack of lawsuits themselves, let alone the insurance) Indeed. When doctors dont have to worry about the cost of the treatments then they will provide the best possible help they can. Also, as they dont feel obligated to "cut corners" for the insurance companies there are a lot less problems with people getting poor treatment. Much better formulated than I could do it. Not to say our system is perfect though. We still do have a significant amount of private hospitals, and the public hospitals are right now experiencing budget cuts like crazy. Then again, so is the rest of the country, because of some bad political decisions leaving us unprepared for the financial crisis. Not to say the opposition would be any better at it, but the country is in a rough spot right now. Tremendous' points still stand though. When doctors don't have to worry about cost of treatment, they will provide the most expensive help they can. You may call this "best possible help," but in many cases, the odds of better health outcomes is low to non-existent. It's actually a good thing many European countries are willing to make the unpopular decision to curb health care costs. Otherwise, you really will end up with the fucked up American system, where it's simply not feasible to widen health care coverage because it's so damn expensive.
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
|
On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do.
The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
|
On June 22 2011 10:37 Kiarip wrote:
America shouldn't get public healthcare, because we can't afford it since we're in a deficit, and once if ever we get out of it, no it's not a top priority concern. We don't need more government it's already huge.
America cant afford the huge military budget and waging 3 wars at the same time but you still do it. So its more important to get weapons and get into wars than taking care of your own ppl. Talk about priorites.
In my opinion the US healthcare system and the whole society in general to put 99% of the citizens in huge debt so they cant do anything about it. Media propaganda plays a huge role here and makes if you get public healthcare you are one step away from communism. I find it really wierd that almost never you see americans protesting and asking and fighting for your human rights like in europe.
And about ppl complaining that they dont wanna use their tax money to heal some random joe. Where is your human compasion geez even if you dont want to pay for someone else then you can look it like you are paying for yourself so that IF you get sick you can be treated without being scared to sell your house to stay alive.
In my country the living standard is really low so when someone is really sick he cant really afford to pay 200k $ for some major surgery so ppl always help eachother with sms donations that cost 2-3$. Whats 2$ compared to a life? If you cant afford to give that much than you are a horrible human being.
|
America cant afford the huge military budget and waging 3 wars at the same time but you still do it. So its more important to get weapons and get into wars than taking care of your own ppl. Talk about priorites.
Why do people keep bringing up this stupid military non-sequitur. Reducing the military budget by a drastic 50% would not help. That's 2.5% of GDP. Health care costs in the US are 16% of GDP, and will be 20% within 5 years. Cut the military if you like (I'm all for that on its own merits), but it's not going to help in the long-run.
|
On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
You know what you're suggesting is malpractice right?
|
On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
And as far as I'm aware noone said this was a good idea either. Nor is it reality.
On June 22 2011 11:44 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help. You know what you're suggesting is malpractice right?
No, he isn't. He's suggesting that life has a price, and he's perfectly correct in that statement. The difference would be that when the taxpayers are paying, domovoi (incorrectly) argues that they will then use this money inappropriately, specifically "End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway". If you were to decide if you wanted to pay this yourself or not, that's fine, but when it's the taxpayers then lines have to be drawn somewhere.
|
On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help.
That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered.
Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
|
On June 22 2011 11:45 HellRoxYa wrote:
And as far as I'm aware noone said this was a good idea either. Nor is it reality.
It's the reality in the US, where in many cases doctors don't care about costs. Maybe doctors shouldn't care about costs, but someone needs to.
No, he isn't. He's suggesting that life has a price, and he's perfectly correct in that statement. The difference would be that when the taxpayers are paying, domovoi (incorrectly) argues that they will then use this money inappropriately, specifically "End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway". If you were to decide if you wanted to pay this yourself or not, that's fine, but when it's the taxpayers then lines have to be drawn somewhere.
I'm not sure what's so incorrect about the notion that if taxpayers pay for your treatment, you're probably not going to care about the cost of that treatment.
|
On June 22 2011 11:49 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:45 HellRoxYa wrote:
And as far as I'm aware noone said this was a good idea either. Nor is it reality. It's the reality in the US, where in many cases doctors don't care about costs. Maybe doctors shouldn't care about costs, but someone needs to. Show nested quote +No, he isn't. He's suggesting that life has a price, and he's perfectly correct in that statement. The difference would be that when the taxpayers are paying, domovoi (incorrectly) argues that they will then use this money inappropriately, specifically "End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway". If you were to decide if you wanted to pay this yourself or not, that's fine, but when it's the taxpayers then lines have to be drawn somewhere. I'm not sure what's so incorrect about the notion that if taxpayers pay for your treatment, you're probably not going to care about the cost of that treatment.
1. Private doctors gain from expensive treatments. The more expensive the treatment the more provision you get.
2. See Tremendous post above yours.
|
On June 22 2011 11:49 Tremendous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help. That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight.
Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest.
This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments. I would love it if the US had something like this, but usually that ends up with cries about death panels.
|
On June 22 2011 11:53 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:49 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help. That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight. Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest. This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments.
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
|
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:53 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:49 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help. That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight. Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest. This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments. What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
depends on the situation, euthanasia comes to mind
|
United States41938 Posts
On June 22 2011 11:44 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help. You know what you're suggesting is malpractice right?
What he's suggesting is rationing and it's entirely logical. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on treatments with a very low chance of working while elsewhere people aren't getting vaccines which cost very little compared to the cost of the disease they prevent is madness. Rationing makes sense.
|
On June 22 2011 12:00 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote:On June 22 2011 11:53 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:49 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help. That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight. Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest. This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments. What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous. depends on the situation, euthanasia comes to mind
Only if the patient agrees. What if the patient wants to live? He's arguing that we just let them die anyway.
|
On June 22 2011 11:58 seiferoth10 wrote:
What I gathered from your post is that doctors shouldn't bother treating people with a low percentage of the treatment to be effective. I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore, but that statement in itself is ridiculous.
Let's say there's a treatment with a 1% probability of extending my life for a month. Let's say it costs $10 million. I don't care if you're the smartest man in the world, taxpayers should not be paying for something like that.
Doctors don't necessarily need to worry about costs, but they should operate in a regulatory environment that does care about costs. If the doctor isn't going to care, then at least don't allow such treatments to be funded by taxpayer monies.
|
On June 22 2011 11:53 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 11:49 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 11:38 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 11:35 HellRoxYa wrote:
What exactly is the incentive to go for the most expensive treatment? They don't get paid more for that... private doctors do. The problem is going for any and every possible treatment, no matter how unlikely it will help or how minimal it will extend a person's life. End of life treatment is fucking expensive and rarely works anyway. Health care costs are rising everywhere in the world; we simply should not have doctors go prescribing any and every treatment that might help. That doesn't happen. The doctors dont use patients as ginnypigs for medical experiments. The most effective and standard treatments are used before experimental treatments are considered. Just because its a socialized heathcare system doesn't mean that the doctors have infinite resources or that they are not subject to peer review and oversight. Who said anything about experimental treatments (which in fact are sometimes cheaper to run)? For example, the "Most effective and standard treatments" for end of life treatments are usually overpriced procedures that have a low probability of doing anything. All procedures only have some probability of success, and often that probability is not high enough to justify the cost. Doctors (or at least their regulators) should be concerned about costs, not completely oblivious to them as you suggest. This is why many European countries only agree to fund certain approved treatments.
I misunderstood. Thought you where talking about treatments in general instead of End-of-Life treatment. Sorry =)
Major treatments and high-cost procedure are regulated. If the cost/benifit ratio is crap then it wont get approved. The people running the hospitals have to follow a budget so they cant just approve any treatment.
i belive the reason many EU countries are having to cut healthcare costs atm is because of an increase in life-style deseases (unhealth diet, inactivity etc). But this is considered as a seperate problem which is to be solved by making healthy living more attractive.
|
Instead of spending billions of dollars finding easier and more efficient ways to kill people, why not spend a few billion to save the lives of your own citizens America?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
