JolietJake
Banned
Actually the last time i had insurance i didn't need referrals.
Urologist tells Obama supporters to go elsewhere
- Thread starter ananag112
- Start date
Foxtrot0245
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='JolietJake']Actually the last time i had insurance i didn't need referrals.[/QUOTE]
Gotcha.The fact remains that this guy is no a GP, and he is supposedly from a small town, so I'm just not sure that even if any of these allegations about his sign were true that he would have any effect on anyone's wellbeing.
Gotcha.The fact remains that this guy is no a GP, and he is supposedly from a small town, so I'm just not sure that even if any of these allegations about his sign were true that he would have any effect on anyone's wellbeing.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
HEY TEA PARTIERS; GO GET YOUR 
ING GLAND SLAM BREAKFASTS SOMEWHERE ELSE. YOU TIP LIKE SHIT.
I'ma plaster those on Denny's across the country.
ING GLAND SLAM BREAKFASTS SOMEWHERE ELSE. YOU TIP LIKE SHIT.I'ma plaster those on Denny's across the country.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Foxtrot0245']I agree with a lot of what you said, the sign was admittedly put up to deter Obama voters from seeking healthcare there. But lets be clear... Have you ever just walked into a urologist's office? Ever been rushed to one in an emergency? No. Matter of fact, you need a referral to see a specialist no matter what their area is. My point is, while this is ignorant and very childish (coming from someone who probably has similar views about Obama and his HC bill to boot) it probably isn't very accessible to any situations that have been framed by those seeking his head. It was ill-advised and it should be taken down, but:
A) He won't get the chance to turn anyone away, supposing that his words are more than just a political statement of course, because they probably aren't just wandering in (they have had to get a referral and probably know who he is especially now that this is getting media coverage)
B) I'm guessing (and I really mean that, let me know if you find out otherwise) that at least 90% of people who go to see a urologist are older people. Older people + small town = most likely a town full of people who aren't that opposed to his sign.
I know that I'm sort of reaching with those suppositions, but I just want to emphasize one more time that I agree about the sign being ridiculous and unprofessional, but I sincerely don't think this particular goober's impact on those in need of urologic care is, or will ever be, as profound as some people make it seem.[/QUOTE]
An ends justify the means arguement?
Anyway, I think it's getting national attention because it involves doctors. A lot of people already have anxiety when going to a doctor. You're in pain, you're worried, and the last thing you need is a snarky dismissal because you voted for the other guy.
A) He won't get the chance to turn anyone away, supposing that his words are more than just a political statement of course, because they probably aren't just wandering in (they have had to get a referral and probably know who he is especially now that this is getting media coverage)
B) I'm guessing (and I really mean that, let me know if you find out otherwise) that at least 90% of people who go to see a urologist are older people. Older people + small town = most likely a town full of people who aren't that opposed to his sign.
I know that I'm sort of reaching with those suppositions, but I just want to emphasize one more time that I agree about the sign being ridiculous and unprofessional, but I sincerely don't think this particular goober's impact on those in need of urologic care is, or will ever be, as profound as some people make it seem.[/QUOTE]
An ends justify the means arguement?
Anyway, I think it's getting national attention because it involves doctors. A lot of people already have anxiety when going to a doctor. You're in pain, you're worried, and the last thing you need is a snarky dismissal because you voted for the other guy.
Foxtrot0245
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']An ends justify the means arguement?
Anyway, I think it's getting national attention because it involves doctors. A lot of people already have anxiety when going to a doctor. You're in pain, you're worried, and the last thing you need is a snarky dismissal because you voted for the other guy.[/QUOTE]
I think it's much more likely that it is getting national attention due to an effort on the right to say "Look, a doctor disagrees with the healthcare bill, that MUST mean that this is a terrible bill!" And no, I am not trying to justify his actions, just trying to make people understand that it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.
Anyway, I think it's getting national attention because it involves doctors. A lot of people already have anxiety when going to a doctor. You're in pain, you're worried, and the last thing you need is a snarky dismissal because you voted for the other guy.[/QUOTE]
I think it's much more likely that it is getting national attention due to an effort on the right to say "Look, a doctor disagrees with the healthcare bill, that MUST mean that this is a terrible bill!" And no, I am not trying to justify his actions, just trying to make people understand that it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[quote name='mykevermin']HEY TEA PARTIERS; GO GET YOUR ING GLAND SLAM BREAKFASTS SOMEWHERE ELSE. YOU TIP LIKE SHIT.
I'ma plaster those on Denny's across the country.[/QUOTE]
If you own Denny's across the country, go for it. Free Speech is fine by me.
ING GLAND SLAM BREAKFASTS SOMEWHERE ELSE. YOU TIP LIKE SHIT.I'ma plaster those on Denny's across the country.[/QUOTE]
If you own Denny's across the country, go for it. Free Speech is fine by me.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Copy that, boss. Free speech for just some people some of the time - more of the time if you're a wealthy business owner.
Perfectly reasonable. Reminds me of the days when you had to own land to vote.
Perfectly reasonable. Reminds me of the days when you had to own land to vote.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
...
I have no idea why you're trying to twist a simple statement. It's not fine by me to hang signs on someone else's property just because you want to. 99.9% of people who read my post wouldn't think that it meant what you just stated.
Perfectly obvious. Reminds me of a time when people didn't try to invent meanings to pretty clear statements.
I have no idea why you're trying to twist a simple statement. It's not fine by me to hang signs on someone else's property just because you want to. 99.9% of people who read my post wouldn't think that it meant what you just stated.
Perfectly obvious. Reminds me of a time when people didn't try to invent meanings to pretty clear statements.
Foxtrot0245
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Uh, no. The "If you own a Denny's" part of that rebuttal probably is in reference to the fact that you would be littering property other than your own with paper... regardless of what's on it. Not about freedom of speech. You seem like a smart guy, so act like it dude.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Let's be clear; is this a free speech issue or not? It was troy who made the argument "free speech is fine by me."
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Foxtrot0245']I think it's much more likely that it is getting national attention due to an effort on the right to say "Look, a doctor disagrees with the healthcare bill, that MUST mean that this is a terrible bill!" And no, I am not trying to justify his actions, just trying to make people understand that it's not as big a deal as some are making it out to be.[/QUOTE]
Well that's the difference isn't it.
I see it as a compassion issue and you see it as a scoring points issue.
Well that's the difference isn't it.
I see it as a compassion issue and you see it as a scoring points issue.
[quote name='mykevermin']Let's be clear; is this a free speech issue or not? It was troy who made the argument "free speech is fine by me."[/QUOTE]
Free Speech doesn't mean I get to force my way into your home and rant about whatever I want.
As for Boortz, I agree. If you run a business and you feel an employee is actively working against the legal interests of the business, then you should terminate that employee.
Free Speech doesn't mean I get to force my way into your home and rant about whatever I want.
As for Boortz, I agree. If you run a business and you feel an employee is actively working against the legal interests of the business, then you should terminate that employee.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
1) Who is forcing whose way into who what where? What are you talking about?
2) So you agree that you should fire someone because of whom they voted for?
2) So you agree that you should fire someone because of whom they voted for?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
See, look what happens when you drop analogues and apply effort? I'ma shed a tear I'm so proud of you.
Also, so you agree that you should fire someone because of whom they voted for?
Also, so you agree that you should fire someone because of whom they voted for?
[quote name='mykevermin']Also, so you agree that you should fire someone because of whom they voted for?[/QUOTE]
I agree that if you feel someone is undermining your legal business, then you should terminate their employment.
This doesn't mean that, if your place of employment has unsafe working conditions and you report it, you should be terminated. But if an employee takes part in an action that you, as a business owner, feels is a determent to the health of your business, you should be able to let that employee go.
I agree that if you feel someone is undermining your legal business, then you should terminate their employment.
This doesn't mean that, if your place of employment has unsafe working conditions and you report it, you should be terminated. But if an employee takes part in an action that you, as a business owner, feels is a determent to the health of your business, you should be able to let that employee go.
JolietJake
Banned
I know i shouldn't be surprised, but of course i am.
[quote name='JolietJake']I know i shouldn't be surprised, but of course i am.[/QUOTE]
Let me guess - you think you should be able to force someone to have a business relationship with you just like you believe other people should be forced to pay your bills and health care professionals should lose their right to freely choose who they wish to associate with and lose their right to protest? Why am I not surprised?
Let me guess - you think you should be able to force someone to have a business relationship with you just like you believe other people should be forced to pay your bills and health care professionals should lose their right to freely choose who they wish to associate with and lose their right to protest? Why am I not surprised?
[quote name='UncleBob']Let me guess - you think you should be able to force someone to have a business relationship with you just like you believe other people should be forced to pay your bills and health care professionals should lose their right to freely choose who they wish to associate with and lose their right to protest? Why am I not surprised?[/QUOTE]
If I was a bartender and picketed to ban smoking from bars, the bar itself has no legal standing to fire me. Even though it's probably known to have a bit of a hit on the business.
But this arguement has nothing to do with the dumbass Urologist, if he has no place to point out what and why. Throwing up a sign is just as retarded as Palin saying reload and everyone thinking she means to shoot people.
If I was a bartender and picketed to ban smoking from bars, the bar itself has no legal standing to fire me. Even though it's probably known to have a bit of a hit on the business.
But this arguement has nothing to do with the dumbass Urologist, if he has no place to point out what and why. Throwing up a sign is just as retarded as Palin saying reload and everyone thinking she means to shoot people.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Neal Boortz is a puppy?
I must thank Bob. I agree completely with him. Businesses should be allowed to fire productive workers if they vote the "wrong" way. Of course, said businesses should post signs stating they don't want the business of people who vote the "wrong" way. So, we're full circle and all is well.
In the yellow pages, there should be a "R", "D" or "U" next to each business. When I go online, that should be part of my search parameters.
I like it. I like it a lot.
The next time I purchase a blowjob, I should ask myself, "Should I cum in the mouth of a Republican, Democrat or Unaffiliated prostitute?"
I must thank Bob. I agree completely with him. Businesses should be allowed to fire productive workers if they vote the "wrong" way. Of course, said businesses should post signs stating they don't want the business of people who vote the "wrong" way. So, we're full circle and all is well.
In the yellow pages, there should be a "R", "D" or "U" next to each business. When I go online, that should be part of my search parameters.
I like it. I like it a lot.
The next time I purchase a blowjob, I should ask myself, "Should I cum in the mouth of a Republican, Democrat or Unaffiliated prostitute?"
I vote we stop talking about the circuitous brick wall we've hit ("But how do you know he fired them because they voted for Obama? He's going to save money by not employing them any longer, isn't that within his rights? The vote had nothing to do with it") and focus more on the many facets of oral sex and the political ramifications therein related.
[quote name='IRHari']But you were arguing that if a client (or customer) was 'hurting' your business you should not serve them. EVEN IF they were patients and the business was practicing medicine.[/QUOTE]
I need to clarify - when I say "should", I do mean "should be allowed to".
And yes - both situations are the same. Individuals should be allowed to make the determination as to who they wish to associate with (business or personal) - and if they want to use political preferences as part of that criteria, then so be it.
I need to clarify - when I say "should", I do mean "should be allowed to".
And yes - both situations are the same. Individuals should be allowed to make the determination as to who they wish to associate with (business or personal) - and if they want to use political preferences as part of that criteria, then so be it.
[quote name='Strell']Well, I guess the "is medicine nothing more than a business" question has been answered. Another one of life's greatest uncertainties put to rest.[/QUOTE]
For some people, it is. Until all you bleedin' heart liberals decide to take an interest in the field of health care and start opening up your own nationwide not-for-profit practices, that's not going to change much. I mean, I know it's easier to sit around and play your 360 and gripe on video game deal forums about your lack of health care - but that only gets you so far. "Be the change you want to see in the world." Good words to live by.
For some people, it is. Until all you bleedin' heart liberals decide to take an interest in the field of health care and start opening up your own nationwide not-for-profit practices, that's not going to change much. I mean, I know it's easier to sit around and play your 360 and gripe on video game deal forums about your lack of health care - but that only gets you so far. "Be the change you want to see in the world." Good words to live by.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']For some people, it is. Until all you bleedin' heart liberals decide to take an interest in the field of health care and start opening up your own nationwide not-for-profit practices, that's not going to change much. [/QUOTE]
What if those bleeding hearts ramrod a single payer system through?
What if those bleeding hearts ramrod a single payer system through?
I'll be sure to not give my children bandaids when they scrape their knees unless those little brats pay up first.
Besides, seems like we did take an interest, what with the reform and all. Too bad your collective response has run the whine-gamut instead of shoring up the respect we had to pay to useless wars, wiretapping, and cutting taxes to the people who don't need them.
Besides, seems like we did take an interest, what with the reform and all. Too bad your collective response has run the whine-gamut instead of shoring up the respect we had to pay to useless wars, wiretapping, and cutting taxes to the people who don't need them.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Oh, you'll get some change, all right.[/QUOTE]
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/wkjxdczgzk--ooo-the-germans-The-Simpsons-Harry-Shearer-Mr-Burns
Replace Germans with Republicans.
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/wkjxdczgzk--ooo-the-germans-The-Simpsons-Harry-Shearer-Mr-Burns
Replace Germans with Republicans.
[quote name='Strell']I'll be sure to not give my children bandaids when they scrape their knees unless those little brats pay up first.[/quote]
So, when will Strell's Free Care Clinic be opening? How many years of medical school you got left to go?
No - you did the exact opposite. Instead of working to get involved with the health care profession, you signed it over to the government to take care of it for you.
Maybe if more of you had stood up against the wars and the illegal wire tapping, you could have been useful. I mean, there was only so many people I could discuss my dislike about going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with. I'm only one man.
So, when will Strell's Free Care Clinic be opening? How many years of medical school you got left to go?
No - you did the exact opposite. Instead of working to get involved with the health care profession, you signed it over to the government to take care of it for you.
Maybe if more of you had stood up against the wars and the illegal wire tapping, you could have been useful. I mean, there was only so many people I could discuss my dislike about going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq with. I'm only one man.
Goodness. I get on hate lists so quickly these days.
It means I'm doing something right.
For the record, I wanted to be a doctor for a long time. Gave it up for a variety of reasons, none of which are all that interesting or warranted to discuss on here. But hey, don't let me tell you how to disregard.
I'll ignore the hyperbolic faffing about "signing it over to the government," since that's about the worst 0.00000000001 percent way of categorizing it. Or, as I like to call it, Fox News.
It means I'm doing something right.
For the record, I wanted to be a doctor for a long time. Gave it up for a variety of reasons, none of which are all that interesting or warranted to discuss on here. But hey, don't let me tell you how to disregard.
I'll ignore the hyperbolic faffing about "signing it over to the government," since that's about the worst 0.00000000001 percent way of categorizing it. Or, as I like to call it, Fox News.
[quote name='Strell']I'll ignore the hyperbolic faffing about "signing it over to the government," since that's about the worst 0.00000000001 percent way of categorizing it. Or, as I like to call it, Fox News.[/QUOTE]
Tell me - with these new reforms in Health Care that you were so interested in passing, which group is going to have greater control over Health Care than before the bills passed:
A.) Doctors/Nurses
B.) Patients
C.) Insurers
D.) Government Officials
And I still love you, Strell - even if I still think you tired to stab me in the face with the "brown people" comment.
Tell me - with these new reforms in Health Care that you were so interested in passing, which group is going to have greater control over Health Care than before the bills passed:
A.) Doctors/Nurses
B.) Patients
C.) Insurers
D.) Government Officials
And I still love you, Strell - even if I still think you tired to stab me in the face with the "brown people" comment.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']So, when will Strell's Free Care Clinic be opening? How many years of medical school you got left to go?
[/QUOTE]
Haven't dopa and BigT repeatedly stated they aren't part of the problem?
If doctors aren't the part of the problem, how will being a doctor with a vow of poverty be part of the solution?
[/QUOTE]
Haven't dopa and BigT repeatedly stated they aren't part of the problem?
If doctors aren't the part of the problem, how will being a doctor with a vow of poverty be part of the solution?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Haven't dopa and BigT repeatedly stated they aren't part of the problem?
If doctors aren't the part of the problem, how will being a doctor with a vow of poverty be part of the solution?[/QUOTE]
Can't speak for dopa and BigT. But there are issues with many doctors - like ordering fancy new machines and finding excuses to run unnecessary tests so they can pay for them (just one quick example).
And, besides, even if doctors aren't the problem, a large amount of free doctors would completely circumvent the entire insurance industry. No need for insurance if your doctor is going to provide everything for you.
If doctors aren't the part of the problem, how will being a doctor with a vow of poverty be part of the solution?[/QUOTE]
Can't speak for dopa and BigT. But there are issues with many doctors - like ordering fancy new machines and finding excuses to run unnecessary tests so they can pay for them (just one quick example).
And, besides, even if doctors aren't the problem, a large amount of free doctors would completely circumvent the entire insurance industry. No need for insurance if your doctor is going to provide everything for you.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Can't speak for dopa and BigT. But there are issues with many doctors - like ordering fancy new machines and finding excuses to run unnecessary tests so they can pay for them (just one quick example).
And, besides, even if doctors aren't the problem, a large amount of free doctors would completely circumvent the entire insurance industry. No need for insurance if your doctor is going to provide everything for you.[/QUOTE]
Did the 36 countries get their better aggregate care by having a bunch of doctors enter the field and work for free?
EDIT: Also, are these free doctors going produce patented medicines for free?
And, besides, even if doctors aren't the problem, a large amount of free doctors would completely circumvent the entire insurance industry. No need for insurance if your doctor is going to provide everything for you.
[/QUOTE]Did the 36 countries get their better aggregate care by having a bunch of doctors enter the field and work for free?
EDIT: Also, are these free doctors going produce patented medicines for free?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Did the 36 countries get their better aggregate care by having a bunch of doctors enter the field and work for free?[/quote]
Wait - you mean doctors in all those other countries make money off their work too? Like it a business relationship there as well? Weird.
Wait - you mean doctors in all those other countries make money off their work too? Like it a business relationship there as well? Weird.
So we need some bleedin' heart liberals to enter the R&D field as well. I bet you guys could come up with some pretty awesome drugs that you could give away for free. A pill that cures cancer and AIDS. And Republicanism.
Government regulates the Police, Fire, and Rescue... why not doctors? Sure most small communities are volunteers, but that could work for clinics and 1/2nd year interns.
They regulate the safety (supposedly) of Food and Drugs, hell even guns and real drugs... but why not the general care of health?
Education is public, paid through taxes, why bother then and just privatize it? Because of costs, because raising a bunch of morons will ultimately damage the nation as a whole... why not health of their citizens too?
It's not like it's only an entitlement to the rich? Or only to US born?
The E.R. operates at a loss to begin with, because humanity should have that right to fight to live.
If anyone has a better idea on how to do it, then speak up. So far, all I've heard is "you're doing it wrong".... but nothing on how to fix it, which is what the opposition should be doing to voice it.
[quote name='UncleBob']Wait - you mean doctors in all those other countries make money off their work too? Like it a business relationship there as well? Weird.
So we need some bleedin' heart liberals to enter the R&D field as well. I bet you guys could come up with some pretty awesome drugs that you could give away for free. A pill that cures cancer and AIDS. And Republicanism.[/QUOTE]
Some of the best stuff comes from Grants to universities not to make a profit but actaully do it for the science.... Sure making a buck helps, but some actually do it not for the money.
They regulate the safety (supposedly) of Food and Drugs, hell even guns and real drugs... but why not the general care of health?
Education is public, paid through taxes, why bother then and just privatize it? Because of costs, because raising a bunch of morons will ultimately damage the nation as a whole... why not health of their citizens too?
It's not like it's only an entitlement to the rich? Or only to US born?
The E.R. operates at a loss to begin with, because humanity should have that right to fight to live.
If anyone has a better idea on how to do it, then speak up. So far, all I've heard is "you're doing it wrong".... but nothing on how to fix it, which is what the opposition should be doing to voice it.
[quote name='UncleBob']Wait - you mean doctors in all those other countries make money off their work too? Like it a business relationship there as well? Weird.
So we need some bleedin' heart liberals to enter the R&D field as well. I bet you guys could come up with some pretty awesome drugs that you could give away for free. A pill that cures cancer and AIDS. And Republicanism.[/QUOTE]
Some of the best stuff comes from Grants to universities not to make a profit but actaully do it for the science.... Sure making a buck helps, but some actually do it not for the money.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Did the 36 countries get their better aggregate care by having a bunch of doctors enter the field and work for free?
EDIT: Also, are these free doctors going produce patented medicines for free?[/QUOTE]
Drug companies in large part piggy back off government funding out right or government funded and/or non profit universities anyway.
See also:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
Old but still relevant.
EDIT: Also, are these free doctors going produce patented medicines for free?[/QUOTE]
Drug companies in large part piggy back off government funding out right or government funded and/or non profit universities anyway.
See also:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
Old but still relevant.
[quote name='xycury']Government regulates the Police, Fire, and Rescue... why not doctors? Sure most small communities are volunteers, but that could work for clinics and 1/2nd year interns.
They regulate the safety (supposedly) of Food and Drugs, hell even guns and real drugs... but why not the general care of health?
Education is public, paid through taxes, why bother then and just privatize it? Because of costs, because raising a bunch of morons will ultimately damage the nation as a whole... why not health of their citizens too?
It's not like it's only an entitlement to the rich? Or only to US born?
The E.R. operates at a loss to begin with, because humanity should have that right to fight to live.
If anyone has a better idea on how to do it, then speak up. So far, all I've heard is "you're doing it wrong".... but nothing on how to fix it, which is what the opposition should be doing to voice it.[/QUOTE]
Do you really, really want our health care system ran like the police or public schools?
I mean, I think a Gates-like incident for health care would make for a great post to read, but a sad situation.
Anywhoo, the major problem with trying to shoe-horn health care into the same fields as police, fire, etc. - there are few fields that take the knowledge (and, sadly, the money to pay for the chance to learn said knowledge) and the time investment needed to work in them - and the Health Care field is one of them. Virtually any Joe Schmoe can take a few weekends with the volunteer fire department and learn the basics of putting out a fire to the point where he can work with them on a regular basis. Hell, you can become a fireman with nothing more than a high school diploma.
This is why the average firefighter salary is $40,606 while the average urologist makes $358,000 (results via quick Google search - your results may vary).
Do you think the average person is going to put the time and money into becoming a doctor for the pay of a firefighter or a school teacher?
To do what you're purposing, we would honestly need to revamp the entire educational process surrounding the medical field - first and foremost, tackling, head on, the costs of medical education.
Now, we can stick our fingers in our ears and shout out random words, trying to ignore the business decisions that need to be made in regards to health care - but that's not helpful.
They regulate the safety (supposedly) of Food and Drugs, hell even guns and real drugs... but why not the general care of health?
Education is public, paid through taxes, why bother then and just privatize it? Because of costs, because raising a bunch of morons will ultimately damage the nation as a whole... why not health of their citizens too?
It's not like it's only an entitlement to the rich? Or only to US born?
The E.R. operates at a loss to begin with, because humanity should have that right to fight to live.
If anyone has a better idea on how to do it, then speak up. So far, all I've heard is "you're doing it wrong".... but nothing on how to fix it, which is what the opposition should be doing to voice it.[/QUOTE]
Do you really, really want our health care system ran like the police or public schools?
I mean, I think a Gates-like incident for health care would make for a great post to read, but a sad situation.
Anywhoo, the major problem with trying to shoe-horn health care into the same fields as police, fire, etc. - there are few fields that take the knowledge (and, sadly, the money to pay for the chance to learn said knowledge) and the time investment needed to work in them - and the Health Care field is one of them. Virtually any Joe Schmoe can take a few weekends with the volunteer fire department and learn the basics of putting out a fire to the point where he can work with them on a regular basis. Hell, you can become a fireman with nothing more than a high school diploma.
This is why the average firefighter salary is $40,606 while the average urologist makes $358,000 (results via quick Google search - your results may vary).
Do you think the average person is going to put the time and money into becoming a doctor for the pay of a firefighter or a school teacher?
To do what you're purposing, we would honestly need to revamp the entire educational process surrounding the medical field - first and foremost, tackling, head on, the costs of medical education.
Now, we can stick our fingers in our ears and shout out random words, trying to ignore the business decisions that need to be made in regards to health care - but that's not helpful.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='UncleBob']Can't speak for dopa and BigT. But there are issues with many doctors - like ordering fancy new machines and finding excuses to run unnecessary tests so they can pay for them (just one quick example).
[/QUOTE]
It's not only a question of running tests to profit on them... I mean, that does happen in the community (e.g., many unecessary cardiac catheterizations). A lot of it is done out of fear. I'm not emergency medicine trained, but have worked in emergency departments as a resident. A lot of it is defensive medicine.
* For example, at one hospital, any one who falls down, no matter how minor the fall is triaged as a trauma... per policy, they get all get a head ct, c-collar, c-spine films, FAST scan, CT abdomen, chest radiograph, and radiographs of anything else that hurts or looks like it may have an injury.
* The ER docs are also aggressive about not missing a myocardial infarction (MI) or pulmonary embolism (PE). If anyone has any, even vague complaints of chest pain, they get triaged for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and get observed for serial markers, etc. But that's probably not that unreasonable. What's worse are the people who come in a bit tachycardic, have no shortness of breath and no leg swelling, and the ED doc orders a D-dimer for some God unkown reason, which invariably turns out to be slightly elevated and then a patient gets a CT angiogram...
Their argument for doing this is "well it only takes one missed MI or PE to ruin a career." I guess with our current legal climate, it's hard to argue with that.
[/QUOTE]
It's not only a question of running tests to profit on them... I mean, that does happen in the community (e.g., many unecessary cardiac catheterizations). A lot of it is done out of fear. I'm not emergency medicine trained, but have worked in emergency departments as a resident. A lot of it is defensive medicine.
* For example, at one hospital, any one who falls down, no matter how minor the fall is triaged as a trauma... per policy, they get all get a head ct, c-collar, c-spine films, FAST scan, CT abdomen, chest radiograph, and radiographs of anything else that hurts or looks like it may have an injury.
* The ER docs are also aggressive about not missing a myocardial infarction (MI) or pulmonary embolism (PE). If anyone has any, even vague complaints of chest pain, they get triaged for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and get observed for serial markers, etc. But that's probably not that unreasonable. What's worse are the people who come in a bit tachycardic, have no shortness of breath and no leg swelling, and the ED doc orders a D-dimer for some God unkown reason, which invariably turns out to be slightly elevated and then a patient gets a CT angiogram...
Their argument for doing this is "well it only takes one missed MI or PE to ruin a career." I guess with our current legal climate, it's hard to argue with that.
BigT
CAGiversary!
[quote name='xycury']The E.R. operates at a loss to begin with, because humanity should have that right to fight to live.
[/QUOTE]
Within reason. If you're a 90 year old guy with ischemic cardiomyopathy (LV ejection fraction of 20%), widely metastatic lung cancer with brain mets, and end stage renal disease coming in for septic shock from postobstructive pneumonia, then yeah, I can probably keep you alive for a pretty long time after intubating you, placing a couple of central lines, running some neosynephrine and levophed, and using CVVHD. However, I can almost guarantee you that your chance of ever leaving the ICU or having a meaningful recover is virtually nil; but you may end up racking up several 100K in hospital costs... DNR/DNI! and Hospice! Hospice! Hospice! I sure as hell know that when I'm >80 years old, I don't even want to be admitted to a hospital, much less resuscitated, poked, and prodded. Give me a morphine drip and leave me the hell alone!
[/QUOTE]
Within reason. If you're a 90 year old guy with ischemic cardiomyopathy (LV ejection fraction of 20%), widely metastatic lung cancer with brain mets, and end stage renal disease coming in for septic shock from postobstructive pneumonia, then yeah, I can probably keep you alive for a pretty long time after intubating you, placing a couple of central lines, running some neosynephrine and levophed, and using CVVHD. However, I can almost guarantee you that your chance of ever leaving the ICU or having a meaningful recover is virtually nil; but you may end up racking up several 100K in hospital costs... DNR/DNI! and Hospice! Hospice! Hospice! I sure as hell know that when I'm >80 years old, I don't even want to be admitted to a hospital, much less resuscitated, poked, and prodded. Give me a morphine drip and leave me the hell alone!
OK, restrict health insurance to apply only for true emergencies. Have low premium/high deductible plans that will cover you in case you have a big event. Otherwise, just make health care be paid out of pocket. For the poor, provide government funded health care in teaching institutions and county clinics/hospitals.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='xycury']Education is public, paid through taxes, why bother then and just privatize it? Because of costs, because raising a bunch of morons will ultimately damage the nation as a whole... why not health of their citizens too?[/QUOTE]
OT, but...
Are you really lauding our educational system right now? And are you saying it would be more expensive to privatize it? I thoroughly disagree. We spend TONS on education right now, and have increased that amount reflexively over the past few decades, and yet we lag most developed countries in results. We have high costs NOW. We are turning out morons NOW. We need massive changes NOW.
I fully support privatizing the school system. Government should give each child a voucher for an accredited school for $10,000-$15,000. That's what most school systems are paying now (some, like the DC public schools, pay significantly more than that even). Don't tell me we can't get some talented and motivated people into teaching with $250,000+ going to each classroom for teacher salary, equipment, books, administration, etc.
Government is doing a rotten job right now. Why do home-schooled kids come out ahead? Why do private school kids come out ahead? At least partly because they have better teachers and better learning systems.
OT, but...
Are you really lauding our educational system right now? And are you saying it would be more expensive to privatize it? I thoroughly disagree. We spend TONS on education right now, and have increased that amount reflexively over the past few decades, and yet we lag most developed countries in results. We have high costs NOW. We are turning out morons NOW. We need massive changes NOW.
I fully support privatizing the school system. Government should give each child a voucher for an accredited school for $10,000-$15,000. That's what most school systems are paying now (some, like the DC public schools, pay significantly more than that even). Don't tell me we can't get some talented and motivated people into teaching with $250,000+ going to each classroom for teacher salary, equipment, books, administration, etc.
Government is doing a rotten job right now. Why do home-schooled kids come out ahead? Why do private school kids come out ahead? At least partly because they have better teachers and better learning systems.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']OT, but...
Are you really lauding our educational system right now? And are you saying it would be more expensive to privatize it? I thoroughly disagree. We spend TONS on education right now, and have increased that amount reflexively over the past few decades, and yet we lag most developed countries in results. We have high costs NOW. We are turning out morons NOW. We need massive changes NOW.
I fully support privatizing the school system. Government should give each child a voucher for an accredited school for $10,000-$15,000. That's what most school systems are paying now (some, like the DC public schools, pay significantly more than that even). Don't tell me we can't get some talented and motivated people into teaching with $250,000+ going to each classroom for teacher salary, equipment, books, administration, etc.
Government is doing a rotten job right now. Why do home-schooled kids come out ahead? Why do private school kids come out ahead? At least partly because they have better teachers and better learning systems.[/QUOTE]
We don't spend a ton on education, we scrape by with spending almost nothing. Privatizing the system will bring more problems that are already seen throughout private colleges.
Are you really lauding our educational system right now? And are you saying it would be more expensive to privatize it? I thoroughly disagree. We spend TONS on education right now, and have increased that amount reflexively over the past few decades, and yet we lag most developed countries in results. We have high costs NOW. We are turning out morons NOW. We need massive changes NOW.
I fully support privatizing the school system. Government should give each child a voucher for an accredited school for $10,000-$15,000. That's what most school systems are paying now (some, like the DC public schools, pay significantly more than that even). Don't tell me we can't get some talented and motivated people into teaching with $250,000+ going to each classroom for teacher salary, equipment, books, administration, etc.
Government is doing a rotten job right now. Why do home-schooled kids come out ahead? Why do private school kids come out ahead? At least partly because they have better teachers and better learning systems.[/QUOTE]
We don't spend a ton on education, we scrape by with spending almost nothing. Privatizing the system will bring more problems that are already seen throughout private colleges.
bread's done