|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 21 2020 14:53 Wegandi wrote:
Points to period in healthcare when Government involvement was negligible with accordingly low prices - posters distort and rationalize to ignore said data. Provide data on wages and economic growth - posters ignore.
The onus is on you to prove the causal relationship in the correlation you're establishing.
"Healthcare was cheaper when it was not regulated by the government" does not logically mean that "healthcare was cheaper because it was not regulated by the government". We have provided examples for why that relationship may not a causal one (because many sources of healthcare expenses today did not exist back then and make large contributions to why healthcare is expensive irrespective of regulation). As the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate causality, not simply to point to said correlation and take the causality as fact. This is not us rationalizing or distorting facts, it's us expecting you to make logically sound arguments.
|
On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public?
I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee.
EDIT: I can't read.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 21 2020 15:08 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public? I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee.
His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS.
|
On November 21 2020 14:53 Wegandi wrote:
Points to period in healthcare when Government involvement was negligible with accordingly low prices - posters distort and rationalize to ignore said data. Provide data on wages and economic growth - posters ignore.
Daft folks don't understand comparative analysis and act like I'm saying healthcare practices should revert to 1900. Good lord. Just ban me so I don't have any temptation to come here anymore.
Yango you ever wonder why technology drives prices lower in industries with low Government involvement and prices rise astronomically high in any industry with high degree of Government involvement? (Which is why I get a chuckle out of Government nationalizing healthcare will reduce costs - look at DoD spending, VA, CMS/Medicaid, etc. Laughable just laughable. I used to always laugh at how much the DoD paid for simple things like small computer screens circa 2009 (325$ for shitty screens when I could have went to best buy and bought for 150$)) Ok now ban me.
I'm not saying that you're advocating to go back to healthcare circa 1910. I'm saying that you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the differences between healthcare then and now and the resultant changes to the healthcare industry and commensurate cost changes.
The costs of healthcare have changed because the structure and function of healthcare has changed since 1910.
Surgery basically didn't exist in a way that is even remotely comparable to today's standards. Healthcare was absolutely abhorrent and practically non-existent for the vast majority of individuals. You romanticizing the healthcare industry of 1910 is so horrifically ignorant that it makes me wonder if you've ever seriously studied history at all, particularly the history of healthcare.
|
On November 21 2020 14:53 Wegandi wrote:
Points to period in healthcare when Government involvement was negligible with accordingly low prices - posters distort and rationalize to ignore said data. Provide data on wages and economic growth - posters ignore.
Daft folks don't understand comparative analysis and act like I'm saying healthcare practices should revert to 1900. Good lord. Just ban me so I don't have any temptation to come here anymore.
Yango you ever wonder why technology drives prices lower in industries with low Government involvement and prices rise astronomically high in any industry with high degree of Government involvement? (Which is why I get a chuckle out of Government nationalizing healthcare will reduce costs - look at DoD spending, VA, CMS/Medicaid, etc. Laughable just laughable. I used to always laugh at how much the DoD paid for simple things like small computer screens circa 2009 (325$ for shitty screens when I could have went to best buy and bought for 150$)) Ok now ban me.
|
On November 21 2020 15:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 15:08 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public? I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee. His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS.
Ah, you're right. I misread it 
|
It's definitely a step up from "I'm gonna drop a conspiracy theory and announce my intent to leave the discussion so I don't have to deal with my own bullshit". That's a committed cop-out.
|
On November 21 2020 15:12 KwarK wrote:
His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS.
Poor patients tend not to be the litigious ones anyway. Suing doctors requires having money to pay lawyers, and requires having the health literacy to actually distinguish medical malpractice from "natural" complications. Docs that serve underserved populations unfortunately can actually get away with a lot especially if they're good at building a rapport with their patients and spinning their errors the right way.
It's affluent patients that tend to be more litigious due to a combination of having enough health literacy to know when they got fucked, and having the money to hire lawyers. From my (admittedly limited) anecdotal experience, private hospitals that serve well-to-do patient populations often have to do way more protect themselves from litigation. A fear of litigious poor patients just isn't really grounded in the reality of healthcare in underserved populations.
|
On November 21 2020 14:53 Wegandi wrote:
Points to period in healthcare when Government involvement was negligible with accordingly low prices - posters distort and rationalize to ignore said data. Provide data on wages and economic growth - posters ignore.
Daft folks don't understand comparative analysis and act like I'm saying healthcare practices should revert to 1900. Good lord. Just ban me so I don't have any temptation to come here anymore.
Yango you ever wonder why technology drives prices lower in industries with low Government involvement and prices rise astronomically high in any industry with high degree of Government involvement? (Which is why I get a chuckle out of Government nationalizing healthcare will reduce costs - look at DoD spending, VA, CMS/Medicaid, etc. Laughable just laughable. I used to always laugh at how much the DoD paid for simple things like small computer screens circa 2009 (325$ for shitty screens when I could have went to best buy and bought for 150$)) Ok now ban me.
You can't pretend to be frustrated with people while also accusing people of wanting to throw you in a gulag labor camp.
|
On November 21 2020 12:59 iamthedave wrote:
I can't help but feel that much in American discourse would be improved if the lessons learned from the failures of unchecked Capitalism seen in Russia for the best part of a century and in dozens of other places around the world, were as vividly recalled as those of Communism.
Every time people complain about Russia being an Oligarchy, they should follow up with 'and that's why unchecked Capitalism is bad'.
It'd probably help quell this semi-religious belief in the free market, which has literally never worked ever anywhere for long, least of all in America.
A good place to start is to refer to the billionaire class as "oligarchs." It might be unflattering, but it's no less accurate a label in the US.
|
Could refer to them as Robber-Barons too. That one has some cultural weight to it.
|
Considering that the demand for not wanting to die or remaining impaired is strong, I'm glad healthcare is regulated around here. Because the supply side in medicine is rather tight.
Can't really understand the desire for private clinics that have the objective to say something along 'your money or your life' when they squeeze you for profit. Good luck having tons of competitors in that sector, not gonna happen.
|
Northern Ireland27232 Posts
On November 21 2020 13:23 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 13:09 Zambrah wrote:
Hell, we could even just look at the Gilded Age to see examples of rampant wage disparity, thats where we coined the term Robber-Barons after all. Rampant capitalism has had its part in American history to learn from, and we get to preemptively dismiss the idea that America is somehow special and will somehow do it right when its done it before and it didnt do it right. If you look at wage data, markers of wealth, and other metrics the period of 1880-1910 was the period of highest wealth accumulation for the American people. Of course you will dismiss the data and point to some stupid fucking book that was more a propaganda piece than historical fact (The Jungle). If you really want the data I'll provide, but its not going to change your opinion at all. What the hell. Read page 46 and page 53 - End of the Century about wages / 1860 - 1890. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106016056613&view=1up&seq=46 (from a BLS paper in 1976) Summary: US had higher wages than comparative countries, significantly improved wealth and income compared to 1800 (and since mid century) and a better growing economy (not withstanding the short lived recession during Clevelands 2nd term). For more historical data: https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/pricesandwages/1880-1889They have all the decades for you to peruse. Its whatever though. Government schools teaching wrong ahistorical propaganda about this time period and for rubes to believe it is par for the course. One of the most popular leftist intellectuals of the 20th Century also wrote extensively about this time period and how the Progressive Era destroyed the market and "highest period of competition in US history". (Gabriel Kolko) This idea of unregulated capitalism being awful for people and being overrun with monopolies has never had one ounce to do with any facts. Its ahistorical hogwash. Dismiss the data to protect your dogma. Its expected.
There is so much data to the contrary from various other times in history and in different locales over different spans of time.
Given those particular sets of conditions, the US being a relatively young nation, the culture of the time and the floor it was starting from, actually unregulated free market capitalism isn’t necessarily a bad fit for increasing the wealth of the citizenry.
I’m not a particularly well-read fellow but I’m pretty sure even the well known socialist thinker Carl Marks espoused the virtues of capitalism in such circumstances.
On the other hand I wouldn’t use it as evidence of immutable rules that would necessarily apply today. For one thing how economies functioned and especially the social component to how markets self-regulated is vastly different. Local businesses in communities that are intimately interconnected, where everyone knows each other and attend church every week are rather less liable to gouge each other for short term gain than some giant concern like Walmart would today to its employees or what have you.
I mean I could take tons of data points for the first few decades of the Soviet Union and show how things improved for average Joe there, I don’t think it follows that that was a good system either, both in terms of subsequent history but also in analysis of the pitfalls of that particular way of doing things even on a purely abstract level.
|
On November 21 2020 12:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I think depending on how Biden does in the first year and a half, that might be going back to the Dems favor. Getting the pandemic under control and relief sent out will help their argument that they're the only politicians that can get things done. And any Rs that decide to block relief will have a harder time than this year. I also don't think most Rs are going to get the same kind of response once trump is gone and being buried under all of his legal problems. But we'll see. I'm afraid Biden will spend his time trying to fix the massive issues Trump leaves him with while the Republicans block anything and everything they can and then run in 2 years on "Biden did nothing for you" and people will actually believe them because their life won't feel better and the President always gets the blame.
|
Instead of being afraid of people suing for profit, maybe change the system into something rational so people don't get compensated for doing something incredibly stupid like microwave their dog to dry it. Or spilling cover oneself.
This seems to be a recurring theme of this thread.
Let's improve process A.
Great idea but if we did that, B would fuck C over.
If the atrocious litigation system is part of the US's problem, why not change that too instead of being afraid affordable healthcare would ruin doctors?
|
Bisutopia19371 Posts
On November 21 2020 15:21 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 15:12 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 15:08 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public? I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee. His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS. Ah, you're right. I misread it
I never said they’d be forced by gun point. That’s an extreme take on what I was thinking. I think JimmiC understood because apparently it was something considered in Canada. And stasis was more on point. Currently, a private practice can turn away patients without insurance. Under a new system they would have to accept all patients and might even be forced to accept repeat patients despite those people being problems for them. And if they were forced, it’d probably be at the cost of heavy fines. Think about emergency rooms. The same mentally ill person could check themselves in every day and must not be denied.
But to take a step back, let’s simplify the question. We are providing free health care for people, what are we doing in return for the doctors in a system like this. What do other countries do to support their doctors under extraordinary circumstances?
|
Northern Ireland27232 Posts
On November 21 2020 20:49 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 15:21 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 15:12 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 15:08 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public? I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee. His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS. Ah, you're right. I misread it I never said they’d be forced by gun point. That’s an extreme take on what I was thinking. I think JimmiC understood because apparently it was something considered in Canada. And stasis was more on point. Currently, a private practice can turn away patients without insurance. Under a new system they would have to accept all patients and might even be forced to accept repeat patients despite those people being problems for them. And if they were forced, it’d probably be at the cost of heavy fines. Think about emergency rooms. The same mentally ill person could check themselves in every day and must not be denied. But to take a step back, let’s simplify the question. We are providing free health care for people, what are we doing in return for the doctors in a system like this. What do other countries do to support their doctors under extraordinary circumstances?
For a start people aren’t obligated to treat patients, it’s made pretty explicit at my general practice surgery that being abusive can lead to you being removed from that particular surgery.
|
On November 21 2020 20:49 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 15:21 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 15:12 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 15:08 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public? I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee. His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS. Ah, you're right. I misread it I never said they’d be forced by gun point. That’s an extreme take on what I was thinking. I think JimmiC understood because apparently it was something considered in Canada. And stasis was more on point. Currently, a private practice can turn away patients without insurance. Under a new system they would have to accept all patients and might even be forced to accept repeat patients despite those people being problems for them. And if they were forced, it’d probably be at the cost of heavy fines. Think about emergency rooms. The same mentally ill person could check themselves in every day and must not be denied. But to take a step back, let’s simplify the question. We are providing free health care for people, what are we doing in return for the doctors in a system like this. What do other countries do to support their doctors under extraordinary circumstances?
What "support" do physicians and other healthcare professionals need?
We are healthcare professionals. We signed up to provide healthcare. Refusing to provide care to someone is, in my opinion, horrifically immoral as a general rule. If you joined this field, then you should be able to provide care to anyone that needs it.
Protections like being able to refuse healthcare to someone that is abusive are already in place.
|
United States44203 Posts
On November 21 2020 20:49 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2020 15:21 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 15:12 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 15:08 StasisField wrote:On November 21 2020 14:10 KwarK wrote:On November 21 2020 10:30 BisuDagger wrote:
Just a random thought. Sueing doctors and medical practices is a huge burden for most institutions in the medical field have to deal with. What if more people seek healthcare under Universal Healthcare and then sue those institutions in a system where doctors can’t deny patients care? Would a universal healthcare program include protections or defense fees for doctors? That's a weird question. Why would doctors deny care under a private system but not a public? I think it's less "doctors deny care now but can't with UHC" and more "people who can't afford care now won't have that obstacle with UHC". I'm one of those people right now, actually. I have a micro tear in one my meniscus in my knee right now that I can't deal with due to finances. With UHC, that's no longer an obstacle to me getting proper treatment for this pain in my knee. His fear was specifically that a wave of litigious poor people would swarm the doctors who would be forced by the government, possibly at gunpoint, to treat them only to be subsequently sued by them. But I don’t understand why he’s afraid that would happen. That’s not my understanding of what happens in the UK with the NHS. Ah, you're right. I misread it I never said they’d be forced by gun point. That’s an extreme take on what I was thinking. I think JimmiC understood because apparently it was something considered in Canada. And stasis was more on point. Currently, a private practice can turn away patients without insurance. Under a new system they would have to accept all patients and might even be forced to accept repeat patients despite those people being problems for them. And if they were forced, it’d probably be at the cost of heavy fines. Think about emergency rooms. The same mentally ill person could check themselves in every day and must not be denied. But to take a step back, let’s simplify the question. We are providing free health care for people, what are we doing in return for the doctors in a system like this. What do other countries do to support their doctors under extraordinary circumstances?
1) They wouldn't be suing the doctors, they would be suing the government. The doctors would be employees.
2) Public services already exist but are not abused by malicious actors because everyone recognizes the limits of the entitlement they have to tolerate. You may be entitled to unemployment but that doesn't mean if you schedule appointments with the unemployment office back to back for four weeks they have to give you all those appointments.
|
Funnily enough, if doctors become government employees as a general matter incident to a universal system, they would almost certainly be covered by qualified immunity lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
