This is actually something we really do need to discuss. For most people the majority of your health expenses will occur in your last few years of life. Why do fight so hard and exhaust so much wealth for these last few months of generally low quality life.

 

Why do we Americans believe we can and should beat death.

 

At the same time why do we continue to try to keep those with severe mental and physical disabilities alive? They certainly cause strains on healthcare that can be better served for those who can be productive to society. In fact we really ought to do something about those who do not work in our society at all. Those that don't work, deserve no access to essential services. If they aren't contributing, then they really shouldn't be living should they?

This is actually something we really do need to discuss. For most people the majority of your health expenses will occur in your last few years of life. Why do fight so hard and exhaust so much wealth for these last few months of generally low quality life.

 

Why do we Americans believe we can and should beat death.

 

My dad had a heart transplant in his early 70's and has lived 4 years now with it and his quality of life is anything but low.

At the same time why do we continue to try to keep those with severe mental and physical disabilities alive? They certainly cause strains on healthcare that can be better served for those who can be productive to society. In fact we really ought to do something about those who do not work in our society at all. Those that don't work, deserve no access to essential services. If they aren't contributing, then they really shouldn't be living should they?

I think the situations are significantly different.

I think the situations are significantly different.

 

So it is okay to try to limit health care access to the elderly, but not to those who do not contribute to society?

 

If you are going by the quality of life argument, couldn't it be said that those who contribute little to society aren't living high quality lives?

The plan currently calls for reduction in medical fees to the Medicare Schedule Plus 5%, which will be driving doctors out of the profession and increasing the need for rationing.

 

How much of a cut to "Medicare Schedule Plus 5%" and what percentage of payments would that impact? If your prediction has a chance of being accurate both of those would have to be extremely significant percentages.

 

How, voters will ask, can we cover 50 million more people without any new doctors or nurses? The answer is to ration health care, with the government deciding who’ll get hip and knee replacements, heart-bypass surgery and other medical treatments. And what does rationing mean? It means that the elderly will be denied care that they can now get whenever they want.

 

This sounds exactly like our current system. Insurance companies - in the sense that you use the term - "ration" care. Price "rations" care. Supply "rations" care. Doctors "ration" care.

 

Again, I'm not seeing evidence supporting the assertion that the number of doctors and nurses will decline. That didn't happen with Medicare, which is a comparable example. In fact, simple economics would say that an increase in demand of the projected magnitude would be a boon to the medical industry. Furthermore, your argument relies on the need for millions of citizens to be uninsured. That's an absurd policy.

 

The Obama plan effectively repeals Medicare, putting a Federal Health Board between the elderly and their doctors. This board will instruct public and private insurance carriers on what procedures are to be approved, at what cost and for what patients.

 

Per Dick Morris....The bulk of this rationing will fall on the elderly. We’ll have to revisit the idea that the elderly have, in the words of former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, “a duty to die.”

 

Insurance companies do this currently. And the bill wouldn't repeal Medicare but, more accurately, extend many of those benefits to the rest of the populous. You are basically arguing that insurance options that look like Medicare will fail because Medicare is successful.

Obama says he is going to cut health care spending...which primarily targets medical incomes and encourage rationing. If you are cutting doctor's pay, what do you think that will do to the total number of doctor's?

You want to cut some costs in the medical field, introduce tort reform.

So it is okay to try to limit health care access to the elderly, but not to those who do not contribute to society?

 

If you are going by the quality of life argument, couldn't it be said that those who contribute little to society aren't living high quality lives?

I'm NOT saying limit or deny to anyone. I'm saying we should look at our medical choices more broadly as opposed to simply "this will keep me alive today".

 

The truth is the most bang for your buck in terms of health care is in the preventative and primary care sector. We live healthier than third world countries not because we have Cat scans but because we have clean water, we wash our hands, and we have effective sewage systems.

 

I would be for a public plan that would completely cover primary care for everyone, but not include surgeries and major medical procedures, leave these things in the private market.

I'm NOT saying limit or deny to anyone. I'm saying we should look at our medical choices more broadly as opposed to simply "this will keep me alive today".

 

The truth is the most bang for your buck in terms of health care is in the preventative and primary care sector. We live healthier than third world countries not because we have Cat scans but because we have clean water, we wash our hands, and we have effective sewage systems.

 

I would be for a public plan that would completely cover primary care for everyone, but not include surgeries and major medical procedures, leave these things in the private market.

 

 

I misunderstood you. Apologies.

Obama says he is going to cut health care spending...which primarily targets medical incomes and encourage rationing. If you are cutting doctor's pay, what do you think that will do to the total number of doctor's?

You want to cut some costs in the medical field, introduce tort reform.

 

Costs can be cut outside of lowering doctor pay. Also, as it pertains to pay, insurance companies negotiate with doctors and hospitals and receive volume discounts that are significantly less than the "real" price. It's simple economics - sometimes it is most beneficial to lower price and increase demand, thus increasing profits, which is why there is no evidence of doctors fleeing the profession when prices are negotiated.

 

Additionally, some states, like Texas, have introduced caps on the size of winnings from medical malpractice lawsuits to little or no effect. Costs arising from our system are far more systemic.

Costs can be cut outside of lowering doctor pay. Also, as it pertains to pay, insurance companies negotiate with doctors and hospitals and receive volume discounts that are significantly less than the "real" price. It's simple economics - sometimes it is most beneficial to lower price and increase demand, thus increasing profits, which is why there is no evidence of doctors fleeing the profession when prices are negotiated.

 

Additionally, some states, like Texas, have introduced caps on the size of winnings from medical malpractice lawsuits to little or no effect. Costs arising from our system are far more systemic.

 

Personally "I think pay for losing" is the kind of TORT reform that is needed. But that is just one part of things that need to change.

 

I agree with you that we have systemic issues in our current healthcare system. But I firmly believe that government run healthcare is not the answer. We need to fix what we have, because contrary to what so many people seem to believe, it is the best game in town.

 

I here so many people say we need to reform our healthcare system. And I agree that changes need to be made, but the answer is not to drag it down to the level of others but rather to improve from where we are.

 

Canada, England, France are example of healthcare systems that are much worse than what we have here.