Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Universal health care will not fix the problem, but only make it worse. There are already too few doctors, nurses, and other medical related specialists in this country. I live in a small island community, and even here there are not enough doctors to serve the community as a whole. Some doctors have so many patients on their roles that they are not accepting new patients. As a result, these patients without a primary care physician (PCP) are forced to use the ER as their PCP.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Where you live in Alaska is hardly representative of the US as a whole. There will always be a shortage of skilled professionals in less populated areas.




Medicare/Medicaid dictate to providers what they can charge for certain procedures, what procedures they can offer for specific diagnosis, and if they do not cover these costs, the costs are then passed onto the patient.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

I thought it was the other way around - the insurance companies dictate to medical professionals how to treat patients, or at least what they will cover (in part).

People wonder why medicine in this country costs so much, simple, in order to survive doctors and hospitals must charge more to those who pay their bills so that they can remain in business. Not only do those of us who pay our bills pay more for our medicine, but then we must also see our taxes go to pay for the treatment of those who do not pay their own way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's another good argument for a mandatory single-payer system.


Tonight alone I have been at work for 6 hours and in that time, of the 10 patients that we have seen in the ER only 1 (one) has been a true emergency, the rest have been here because of colds, and sore throats. Surprise, surprise, all 9 of those patients are Medicare/Medicaid recipients. Go figure.

>>>>>>>>>

I agree some people will always find ways to abuse the system no matter what the system is



The current system under government control is broke, and no we want government to control it all. We would not see better healthcare for all, but rather worse.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is no logic to that argument. Govt programs that are well managed and receive adequate funding can work very well and achieve outstanding results.

Look at NASA and the US military for example.






Because once government controls something that means they set the cost for the items. That would mean a decrease in salary for many in the field, and as a result, we would see a decrease in the number of people who enter the field as well as a decrease in the number in the field because there is no longer a better pay off for our services. Less providers, longer wait times, and a less healthier country.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Again, all evidence to the contrary.

Medical professionals in countries like the UK are free to work in private practice, nobody is forced to work for the NHS. Many consultants do both.


There are several things I find amazing when it comes to healthcare. The United States alone pays 50% of all cost with medicines in the world. Perhaps that explains why all new drugs in the most recent years have been founded in the US. We pay a higher percentage of our GDP for healthcare than all other nations, perhaps that is why most new technologies and procedures are developed in this country as well.

>>>>>>>>>>

The US govt subsidised drug research by $28Bn in 2006.

But what is the point of having all the right drugs and technology if it isn't available for the people who need it??

But if those of you who want our healthcare to mimic those of the rest of the world, well, why not. But becareful for what you wish for, you may just get it.

Remember, in the end you get what you pay for......the same is true even in medicine.

dmk

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

who cares what they call it, as long as everybody gets health care coverage?

call it socialist - hell, call it fascism - call it anything - just get poor people health coverage

Originally Posted by mikelew007

I want my 1st vote in a presidential election to be a vote for someone I want in office, not because I think the candidate won't be as bad as the other guy. I want to vote for someone, not against someone.

Originally Posted by forester814

Bad news, Mike. That's how it works out nearly every time.

I only voted for Kerry because he wasn't Bush.
I'd have voted for whoever stood the best chance of beating Bush.

The best available candidate almost never wins, but the one with the largest war chest usually does.

Sorry to sound so jaded.

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

I think it is absolutely AMAZING that a bunch of americans are able to see through the propoganda against universal healthcare.

TO me it just sounds like your political elite would prefer not to be responsible for the wellbeing of your citizens. They would like to be able to take your rights from you for your *ahem* "security" , but prefer it if you didn't expect them to take care of your most basic needs.

Originally Posted by hevusa

I think you have just defined what it is to be American better than most Americans could!

The blind patriot is indeed very confusing and is what is preventing this country from greater things.