Outsourcing medical care - Page 2

kinggovernor · 11-05-2006, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I think this debate is really about compassion. I mean, the debate about taxes and small government is a lofty one.. but the nitty gritty is really about what kind of nation we want, and whether or not we have compassion for people who are unable to take care of themselves.

I think we are capable of accomplishing great things if we put our mind to it as a nation, I don't see why ensuring that all Americans have access to quality health care doesn't fit into a category of "great accomplishments"

call it whatever you want but I don't want to pay more and recieve less service, that is what it really comes down to.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-05-2006, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

call it whatever you want but I don't want to pay more and recieve less service, that is what it really comes down to.

How would you pay more under a universal system? I can understand the argument for receiving less, but paying more?

kinggovernor · 11-05-2006, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How would you pay more under a universal system? I can understand the argument for receiving less, but paying more?

the government is naturally inefficient and it would cost more

R-Type · 11-05-2006, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the government is naturally inefficient and it would cost more

So would a private run oligarchy of insurance companies who put their profits ahead of your care. Either way you pay a lot of money for an ineffcient system

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-05-2006, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the government is naturally inefficient and it would cost more

Yeah, but the costs, albeit increased, would be diffused over the entire country, so it wouldn't necessarily cost you more.

Scrum · 11-05-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

after paying taxes that fund the socialist government healthcare plan

You pay taxes for many, many other things that you don't use.

I would put my healthcare first myself.

Kytro · 11-05-2006, 10:35 PM

It amuses me that the government is not as efficient as private enterprise.

This is primarily because profit is an overhead and decrease value for money.

Instead of insisting that everything be privately run, it should be insisted that things are still run as a business by a government funded group where the outcome goal is balanced books, not profit.

kinggovernor · 11-05-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Yeah, but the costs, albeit increased, would be diffused over the entire country, so it wouldn't necessarily cost you more.

yes it would, the taxes for socialized medicine would higher than the cost of medical insurance

kinggovernor · 11-05-2006, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You pay taxes for many, many other things that you don't use.

I would put my healthcare first myself.

you think you are putting your healthcare first by accepting a system where you are going to have to wait or pay out of pocket for treatment?

Scrum · 11-05-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

you think you are putting your healthcare first by accepting a system where you are going to have to wait or pay out of pocket for treatment?

No. You are putting your healthcare first by having insurance just like you do now.

kinggovernor · 11-05-2006, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No. You are putting your healthcare first by having insurance just like you do now.

agreed

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-05-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes it would, the taxes for socialized medicine would higher than the cost of medical insurance

The cost of medical insurance isn't the totality of medical costs in a non universal system. Another cost, albeit one that's hard to quantify, is the chance of becoming financially crippled as a result of having no medical insurance or insufficient medical insurance. Most people these days cannot rely on having their employers permanently subsidize their medical insurance or being able to buy their own if their employer won't.

Scrum · 11-06-2006, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes it would, the taxes for socialized medicine would higher than the cost of medical insurance

Your medical insurance would go down as well.

Less non-payers they and the Hospitals will be responsible for.

kinggovernor · 11-06-2006, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Your medical insurance would go down as well.

Less non-payers they and the Hospitals will be responsible for.

someone is still going to have to pay for their care

Scrum · 11-06-2006, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

someone is still going to have to pay for their care

You pay for it now.

kinggovernor · 11-06-2006, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You pay for it now.

not completely

Phantom · 11-06-2006, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Businesses may move health care overseas - Yahoo! News

Wow, I always thought two professions that would be permanently immune from outsourcing would be law and medicine. Apparently I was wrong. Medicine can be outsourced.

Law is outsourced. I'll see if I can dig up the WSJ article re lawyers in India trained to do research for American law firms. It was interesting.

Some of the best medical care I have received has been in a foreign country. I had an after hours doctor visit with a shot, antibiotics and an hour of conversation for less than my copay would be here. I would consider foreign options seriously before I paid any large sums for medical care here in the US.

WickedLou9 · 11-06-2006, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

not completely

Through taxes and increased insurance costs.. yea you do.

WickedLou9 · 11-06-2006, 09:32 AM

Socialized health care would definately be cheaper for each individual. Think about all of the companies like GM and Ford who are being really killed by high medical insurance costs. Think about the fact that 50% of all bankruptcys are caused by medical costs. It would also force everyone who has income to share in the cost of medical care. So those people who do have jobs but do not currently have insurance and thus don't pay anything, those people would begin paying. Anyone who has insurance now would see thier overall share of the costs go down. It would be an overall bonus to the economy by lifting a huge burdeon off of businesses who often times pay a significant portion of thier employees health care costs.

Ardentfrost · 11-06-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Socialized health care would definately be cheaper for each individual. Think about all of the companies like GM and Ford who are being really killed by high medical insurance costs. Think about the fact that 50% of all bankruptcys are caused by medical costs. It would also force everyone who has income to share in the cost of medical care. So those people who do have jobs but do not currently have insurance and thus don't pay anything, those people would begin paying. Anyone who has insurance now would see thier overall share of the costs go down. It would be an overall bonus to the economy by lifting a huge burdeon off of businesses who often times pay a significant portion of thier employees health care costs.

Right now I pay $984.24 per year for my pimp-awesome medical coverage (BC/BS PPO where I can use just about every doctor in my state and have all kinds of shit covered). You're saying that with socialized healthcare, I would pay LESS than that per year? I do not buy that... Additionally, I would lose my pimp-awesome coverage because the socialized healthcare would suck balls. So then, not only would I be paying through taxes for socialized healthcare that I wouldn't use, but I'd STILL be paying a grand a year in health insurance.

The answer isn't MORE health insurance... it's less coupled with less medical regulation (plus put a stop to frivalous malpractice suits: keep the ones that really matter, but drop the stupid ones). We need to get the costs of medical care down.