Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[dblack]

The will of the people is not the same thing as the will of the majority.

There is no such thing as "the will of the people", it's impossible to have everyone agree on something like that.

Protecting the "will of the people" requires protecting the freedom of individuals to pursue their will, not forcing consensus on them unnecessarily.

Those services, if provided by government, are indeed founded on an imposition of will. If you live under the government implementing them, you will pay for them and abide by their mandates - or you will go to jail. If you really think these services don't rely on force, why are they "provided" by government? Why not just fund them voluntarily?

But there's a difference between a govt having to force something on people, and people accepting it.
If the govt really forces taxes on people, then why don't they just vote out those who force taxes on them? The people, through the ballot box, actually accept taxes and many other things which are then required a citizens until the time comes when the decision is made to change.

Let's be clear, by "the people", you mean the majority of the people. Certainly not everyone accepts the mandates of government - that's why coercion is required.

Why not voluntarily? Probably because it just wouldn't work. Voluntary will cause friction, anger, and a lot of problems with people using a service they clearly haven't paid for.

Think about that a little more. What wouldn't work? Why not?

The answer you're hiding from is that your plans to force your will on others won't work without making them government programs. Because some people won't cooperate and government provide the power to force them to.

That's the fundamental grant of sovereignty. We give government a monopoly on violence and agree to forgo it's use personally in exchange for protection from those who would.

Yes, people allow a certain amount of control in the govt. The time from before the Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights in England was a time of taking away power from the govt and giving it to the people. There are fundamental protections built into the US constitution.
The govt is allowed, legally and constitutionally a certain level of violence to protect. This differs from state to state, some allow capital punishment, others don't, for example.

Now, we're talking giving govt the power to protect. This is written into the US constitution in article 1 section 8 which also allows for providing general welfare. What this general welfare is, is not always so clear.

How much protection do people need when it comes to healthcare? How much protection do people want to give the govt? In most countries where there is democracy, the people appear in favor of a system which protects their healthcare.

Again with 'the people'. Obviously, not all the people are in favor of such a system.

The problem here is that sometimes you need a controlling central body that can have an impact on social problems.

No, I don't. Not unless I want to bully the rest of society into following my orders.

 

[P@triot]

In the US, there are quite a few things that are socialised. Like the police

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy

The police are not "socialized" - it's the function of law to have a mechanism for enforcing it. Is the law "socialism"?!? Can you make the laws that govern a nation, private?!?

Furthermore, what the hell is your "logic" here even if having law enforcement meant socialism - that because one thing is good socialized, all things would be good socialized?!?

Can you make a rational argument for anything?

When you copied and pasted that quote from wikipedia, it might have been an idea to source it.

What you didn't quote was the next bit.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

""Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these."

Socialism covers a lot of stuff. "State ownership" is clearly what the police is about.

I'm just wondering who owns police buildings, cars, and all other stuff, who pays the wages of the police officers. Is it the govt by any chance?
That would be "state ownership" right?

It's a function of the law to enforce it. And through that you need to have people who enforce it. You could quite easily privatize this, right? Why not have for profit law enforcement? You want for profit healthcare and everything else. Let's get rid of socialism.

No, that's not my logic at all.

My logic is somethings work better socialized and other things don't.

Please don't tell someone what their logic is, based on nothing other than your own logic, and then try and tell them off for not being able to make a rational argument based on what you said and not what I said. It's kind of embarrassing for you.

Uh - no you couldn't genius. This is like saying "privatize the military". Again, unless your (absurd) position is that we can "privatize" the law, then you simply cannot privatize the enforcement mechanism of the law.

Laws govern society genius. Therefore, the enforcement mechanism for them must be public as well (how can a private institution be beholden to their private leadership and the public at the same time?!?). You can't serve two masters.

I love the liberal logic of proclaiming that things which logically must be public (laws, police, military) are evidence of "socialism" and that it indicates socialism is good....

Talk about embarassing...

 

[Chris]

The government is the greatest force for good in America.

Look at all the good they do...all our roads, all our public schools and universities, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, the police, firefighters, EPA, NASA, CDC, NIH, FDA, FBI, etc...

It was greedy corporations that destroyed the world economy in 2008 with a derivatives based Ponzi scheme.....not the government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Haircuts aren't needed daily, do they fall into the same category as health care?

Are they essential to life? Can you not give yourself a haircut?

Insulin is needed daily.
I know plenty of people that give themselves an insulin shot.
Are you now moving the goalposts?

Not at all.

However it's not necessarily about individual things, it's about a whole system anyway.

Firstly it's not about whether private or state health can work, they both can work to a certain degree.

Second, it's about whether you believe that it should be profit or non-profit or somewhere in between.

Third, a health system is essential for people, just like the police, the fire service, the armed forces and so on.

Now, even on something like the NHS, a socialized health care system, there are plenty of things you have to pay for. This still doesn't take away from the fact that many things are free at the point of delivery (ie, you still pay for them through taxes).

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm saying the system is corrupt.

The whole system doesn't work.

And you say that without proving a single darn bit of your statement. I'm supposed to believe you why?
P.S. The goalposts just moved again.[/QUOTE]

Probably, because if you look through this thread, you'll see that I've twice make a comprehensive outline of corruption in the healthcare system and the wasting of at the very least 30% of money that is intended for healthcare.

I'm not going to post this every damn time I make a comment so that someone who arrives late can see this.

Well, if you have a look back at the last post http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/353101-healthcare-should-not-be-a-profit-driven-field-29.html which is here, you can see some of the evidence.

Why should you believe me? Well, probably because it appears to be the reality of the US healthcare system. You can choose to ignore it if you want.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The will of the people is not the same thing as the will of the majority.

Protecting the "will of the people" requires protecting the freedom of individuals to pursue their will, not forcing consensus on them unnecessarily.

So you're basically saying rights are the will of the people, and democracy is the will of the majority? Right, got you.

Think about that a little more. What wouldn't work? Why not?

The answer you're hiding from is that your plans to force your will on others won't work without making them government programs. Because some people won't cooperate and government provide the power to force them to.

Yeah, of course. It's not something I'm hiding from at all. The reason it will cause friction is because people just wouldn't pay for it.

Again with 'the people'. Obviously, not all the people are in favor of such a system.

No, I don't. Not unless I want to bully the rest of society into following my orders.

Yep, human beings are social beings, but also beings which have different views and different ways of thinking.

This is a problem and always will be in a democracy, making the balance between individual and social aspects. We have to make that balance. There is no perfect system, but you find what is best, what works best for the most people.

Rights are there to make sure everyone is protected, however the US is far from perfect in terms of giving all individuals equality. (though equality even means different things to different people).

So in terms of healthcare, most societies in the world believe that this is extremely important and important enough to make it so that everyone can get it, and get it either "free" (at the point of delivery) or cheap.
The US is one of three (i believe) that doesn't, and the healthcare system spends a LOT of money telling people why they shouldn't have it free.

They also spend massive amounts of money on corruption, far more than any health service in any other first world country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit.

Whats the answer? Im not sure. People have to get paid for their work, yes. But the HUGE profits being raked in by the pharma companies, hospitals, doctors, etc, at the expense of what?

I recently read of a new pill that can literally cure Hepatitis C. But....the pills are $1,000 each, and a person would need many of them, making the cost prohibitive to insurance companies.

So you have a big pharma company who developed the very expensive pill; And hospitals who can give the very expensive pill; And insurance companies who may have to pay for the pill. And insurance companies don't wanna pay for it.

Just one of many countless examples of how we humans COULD save or help someone.....but, is it profitable? The profit seems to matter more than the end result lately, and it is a bunch of nonsense.

The pure greed of this nation's population is what will destroy us. Not some cavemen in the Middle East.

I can see where you are coming from BUT, pure greed by big pharmaceutical companies saved my life. Their huge profits made it possible for them to give my the drugs I needed to treat my condition. Even paid for my Dr. visits. Now, and around 2006 when it became fashionable to make pharmaceutical company's evil thugs most have stopped giving these drugs away. So I feel they should be rewarded for the efforts and success at saving human lives. And im 100% okay with them being greedy mother fuckers who dont know me from joe.

My employer has a specialty pharmacy affiliated with it. They handle - obviously - specialty medications outside the regular, run-of-the-mill meds that millions of people take every day. Most of these medications are ungodly expensive; even the co-payments run into 4 digits or more. One of the reasons that we have a specialty pharmacy that handles these meds is because they work with a copayment assistance program affiliated with the manufacturers of these specialty medications to help defray the copayment costs for the patients, so that they don't have to choose between life-saving meds or rent.

I hear on a regular basis from patients who want to opt out of getting the meds through the mail - which is generally cheaper for them and for the insurance company - because the manufacturer of their med has issued them a coupon card that allows them to get the medication at a retail pharmacy cheaper than we can provide it (mail order pharmacies generally don't accept coupon cards).

When our company changed its formulary at the beginning of the year to cover only Lifescan brand diabetic supplies, Lifescan provided all of our members with new glucose monitor kits for free, rather than requiring them to buy a brand-new kit themselves.

Yeah, those pharmaceutical companies are all greedy, heartless bastards with no interests except profiting from human suffering.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The pure greed of this nation's population is what will destroy us. Not some cavemen in the Middle East.

What you don't get is how private industry created a pill that cures Hepatitis-C, not government, and all you do is lament that you don't want to pay for it, and call people greedy for not giving it to you. You may want to re-think your thought of where the greed lies in your scenario...

To the liberal, "greed" means the act of not giving them what they want for free. Libturds operate on the moral code of a 5-year-old.

I object. Even my 5-year-old is more moral and less selfish than these assholes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And that's good enough for you? Would it be good enough if the US military was only superior in one thing? We suck for health care delivery in this country. It is a lie to say we don't.

We have the best medical care in the world. That's a fact.

If you're rich.

Nice try, but no. There are far more qualified, competent doctors in this country than just those that treat the 1%, and everyday people go to see them all the time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Idiotic OP. People think profit is a dirty word when in fact profit is what has allowed this country to progress and provide the highest standard of living in the world. Look at places where medicine is socialized. You hardly see any medical innovation or new drugs being developed there. Why? No reason to. No money in it.

I agree with Edge, as usual. Where do they breed people this stupid?

Say what? The only people progressing is the top 1%. We don't have the highest standard of living just the illusion of it.

We don't have the highest standard of living? You clearly have not visited any other countries.

Oh, sure, if you read UN reports that base their findings on shit like how well-distributed the socialism is, you could convince yourself the US sucks. I personally prefer to measure standard of living by how many luxuries even our lowest economic quintile take for granted. Did you know that the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom? You can actually be investigated by Child Protective Services for possible child abuse if you and your kids live in a home with the average per-person space allotment of a home in one of those countries. No, I'm not kidding. State child abuse laws actually specify what square footage a home should be per person in the family.

 

[bripat9643]

Idiotic OP. People think profit is a dirty word when in fact profit is what has allowed this country to progress and provide the highest standard of living in the world. Look at places where medicine is socialized. You hardly see any medical innovation or new drugs being developed there. Why? No reason to. No money in it.

I agree with Edge, as usual. Where do they breed people this stupid?

Say what? The only people progressing is the top 1%. We don't have the highest standard of living just the illusion of it.

We don't have the highest standard of living? You clearly have not visited any other countries.

Oh, sure, if you read UN reports that base their findings on shit like how well-distributed the socialism is, you could convince yourself the US sucks. I personally prefer to measure standard of living by how many luxuries even our lowest economic quintile take for granted. Did you know that the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom? You can actually be investigated by Child Protective Services for possible child abuse if you and your kids live in a home with the average per-person space allotment of a home in one of those countries. No, I'm not kidding. State child abuse laws actually specify what square footage a home should be per person in the family.

In those countries what they call an 'apartment' we would call a large closet. I met a guy from Germany who said he lived in a 300 Sq Ft "apartment' and paid the equivalent of $1600/mo for it.

According to the U.N. the standard of living for the 'middle class' in Canada supposedly passed up ours. However, I'm currenly working in Toronto and I'm surrounded by Canadians who constantly tell me how everything is so much cheaper in the U.S. and how they pay taxes through the nose. Canadians have an income tax that is about the same as hours. Plus they have a 13% HST tax on everything they buy, even cars and houses.

You go to a McDonald's here you pay $5.00 CAD for a big Mac. I believe the price is under $3.00 and something in the states. Then they slap on the HST tax.

 

[alan1]

I'm saying the system is corrupt.

The whole system doesn't work.

And you say that without proving a single darn bit of your statement. I'm supposed to believe you why?
P.S. The goalposts just moved again.

Probably, because if you look through this thread, you'll see that I've twice make a comprehensive outline of corruption in the healthcare system and the wasting of at the very least 30% of money that is intended for healthcare.

I'm not going to post this every damn time I make a comment so that someone who arrives late can see this.

Well, if you have a look back at the last post http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/353101-healthcare-should-not-be-a-profit-driven-field-29.html which is here, you can see some of the evidence.

Why should you believe me? Well, probably because it appears to be the reality of the US healthcare system. You can choose to ignore it if you want.

Please correct your use of the quote function, as you have now attributed one of your statements to me. (I've corrected your mis-use of the quotes in this post)
Your link leads to a post by The Rabbi, not proof of your statement. But then proof of your statements never existed, they were naught but your opinion.

 

[alan1]

Are they essential to life? Can you not give yourself a haircut?

Insulin is needed daily.
I know plenty of people that give themselves an insulin shot.
Are you now moving the goalposts?

Not at all.

However it's not necessarily about individual things, it's about a whole system anyway.

Firstly it's not about whether private or state health can work, they both can work to a certain degree.

Second, it's about whether you believe that it should be profit or non-profit or somewhere in between.

Third, a health system is essential for people, just like the police, the fire service, the armed forces and so on.

Now, even on something like the NHS, a socialized health care system, there are plenty of things you have to pay for. This still doesn't take away from the fact that many things are free at the point of delivery (ie, you still pay for them through taxes).

You are the one that brought up "individual things" (haircuts ring a bell to you?)

I see nothing wrong with a for profit system, Why shouldn't doctors and other medical professions have a successful and profitable life? What makes you the decider of who should or who should not make a profit?

Police and fire service are determined at the local community level, not the national level. The military protection of the US is in the US Constitution, police, fire service and medical needs are not. All four of which existed at the time this nation was founded, but the founding fathers only saw fit to include the military in the founding documents. It's not like the un-mentioned three suddenly manifested themselves later, so your argument is invalid.

 

[Spoonman]

Ok. Just to put it bluntly: The ability to save a human life, or vastly improve their life, should NOT be one that is driven by profit.

Whats the answer? Im not sure. People have to get paid for their work, yes. But the HUGE profits being raked in by the pharma companies, hospitals, doctors, etc, at the expense of what?

I recently read of a new pill that can literally cure Hepatitis C. But....the pills are $1,000 each, and a person would need many of them, making the cost prohibitive to insurance companies.

So you have a big pharma company who developed the very expensive pill; And hospitals who can give the very expensive pill; And insurance companies who may have to pay for the pill. And insurance companies don't wanna pay for it.

Just one of many countless examples of how we humans COULD save or help someone.....but, is it profitable? The profit seems to matter more than the end result lately, and it is a bunch of nonsense.

The pure greed of this nation's population is what will destroy us. Not some cavemen in the Middle East.

and there goes research and development, innovation and break through technologies. time dedicated to education and specialization.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Please correct your use of the quote function, as you have now attributed one of your statements to me. (I've corrected your mis-use of the quotes in this post)
Your link leads to a post by The Rabbi, not proof of your statement. But then proof of your statements never existed, they were naught but your opinion.

Well I try and get the quotes right, while also reducing what is not necessary, but sometimes it doesn't work out.

I'm not sure which post you looked at, because I don't know how to make it go to the right post, just the page. But on page 29 is my argument that there is a ton of corruption. You can debate this if you like, or you can ignore it and pay a ton of money.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are the one that brought up "individual things" (haircuts ring a bell to you?)

I see nothing wrong with a for profit system, Why shouldn't doctors and other medical professions have a successful and profitable life? What makes you the decider of who should or who should not make a profit?

Police and fire service are determined at the local community level, not the national level. The military protection of the US is in the US Constitution, police, fire service and medical needs are not. All four of which existed at the time this nation was founded, but the founding fathers only saw fit to include the military in the founding documents. It's not like the un-mentioned three suddenly manifested themselves later, so your argument is invalid.

Haircuts was someone else making the suggestion, I said in response that a person could cut their own hair.
My argument has been that healthcare should be non-profit because it's something essential to life. Other people then brought up "individual things" in response to this.

Why shouldn't people have profit? I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm saying the healthcare system which is based around profit is leading to massive corruption and doesn't work.

A doctor doesn't need profit at all. They get wages and very good wages at that.
I'm not suggesting people shouldn't be paid well for doing what they do, doctors are highly skilled individuals. However, a lot of the money that goes on corruption doesn't go to the doctors anyway, but rather much less skilled administrators.

Insurance companies are an unnecessary hindrance to insurance, they cause a divide between patients and their doctors/healthcare personnel in terms of money that leads doctors to charge what they like because they don't see the patients pay, but the insurance companies, even though it is the patients paying.

What makes me a decider if people should get profit or not? Well I have an opinion, I have a vote, and I have a voice. That's what. Welcome to DEMOCRACY (of sorts).

It doesn't matter if the police or fire service are at a local level or a national level, they're still paid for by taxes, you still prevent them from making a profit. I mean, if a policeman stops you, he should be able to take a bribe to increase his "profits" right? Who are you to say he shouldn't?

So because the military is in the US Constitution, it should be non-profit. Er... however welfare IS in the US constitution, look up article 1 section 8.

Also, you're putting 1789 onto 2014. Healthcare has changed quite a bit in that time. Views of healthcare have changed a lot too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

and there goes research and development, innovation and break through technologies. time dedicated to education and specialization.

Imagine this.

15% of healthcare funding is spent on unnecessary admin. Imagine if this were spent on R&D.

You're claiming all of this would disappear, I don't see why.

You seem to be making the claim that only through corruption can the required amount of money be spent. But so much goes on admin, yes, there is also corruption in the buying of drugs.

The producing of drugs and so on doesn't need to be non-profit for healthcare to be non-profit. They're making something. They're not delivering healthcare, it's a separate issue altogether.

In the UK with the NHS they still buy drugs. They buy them mainly off private companies.

I'm not talking about making pharma companies non-profit at all.

I'm talking about making healthcare services non-profit.