That holds true for everyone. People should not be choosing between basic preventative healthcare and feeding their family in the “wealthiest country in the world”. Our patient satisfaction is judged on the people that can actually obtain care while other countries do not hold this caveat.
Anytime the government takes something over it becomes more expensive. Education costs have skyrocketed since the government took over student loans. So why do hospitals charge so much? Because they can and the government does not complain. Same with colleges. So should we really turn healthcare over to the government? The government will not require hospitals and healthcare providers to charge a certain amount. If the government does that then the hospitals and health care providers will just cut the quality of service to the bare minimum. Health care for all= a dumb idea.
There is plenty of prevention. You don't think doctors of overweight people haven't tried to tell their patients what they need to do to be healthier? You don't think doctors haven't told their patients they need to eat healthier and exercise? You don't think doctors haven't told their patients they need to stop smoking? Drink less alcohol? Etc.? The advice is only good if the patients follow it. Which based on my eyeball test, many aren't listening to their doctors. I don't believe sugar is addictive. If it was then why aren't I addicted to it? I like ice cream, chocolate, candy, etc. But I eat all that in what is commonly referred to as moderation. It's also called discipline, which very few people have.
I heard a while back that they charge you for every bit of disposable equipment in the room, because they're supposed to toss it and restock for the next patient. Boxes of gloves, jars of gauze, containers of chemicals, etc. Whether they open them or not, and all at premium prices. Requesting a more detailed invoice of all charges is the only way to see it. I dont go to the hospital, so I dont have first hand experience, just something I heard.
This is an opinion. It's often not as simple as choosing between the two. An uninsured individual who pays to see a doctor only to find out they need a surgery they can't afford is more likely to be unsatisfied. Access to our system, means access to all of it.
Do you think that people smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and eating crap don't know that it is unhealthy? No one needs a doctor to tell them it will make them sick. I am going to use a silly example: There are free donuts in the break room. The discussion is not about who chooses to eat the donuts; its about forcing people to buy them. Sugar is addictive even if you are not addicted to it. I enjoy some scotch from time to time. I am not addicted to alcohol, but it is still very addictive.
We would probably have it by now if anyone trusted the govt to not screw it up. The people that would be making everyones healthcare decisions are the same ones that took 3 years and over a billion dollars to make a website that didnt work. On top of that, it would be crafted by the same politicians that crafted Obamacare. A program that increased costs, increased bureaucracy, shrank the market, and shifted more costs onto the middle class.
Of course they know it's unhealthy yet they choose to do it anyway. To my point, no amount of prevention is going to help these people. Everyone from my generation and young knows the dangers of smoking cigarettes yet people still take up smoking. Everyone knows if you eat more calories than you burn you will get fat. Yet people do it anyway. Who is forcing people to buy donuts? The human body does not become physically dependent on sugar the way it does on opiates like morphine and heroin, sugar is not addictive.
I guess we will have to part ways on my believe that prevention should be our priority, and your belief that there is nothing we can do about it. Thanks for the discussion.
Unfortunately, Obamacare really just empowered the private insurance corporations and health care lobbyists. He probably had good intent but did not create a system with good results or outcomes. The trick will be getting these corporations out of healthcare and funding a new system properly. This is what polls say a majority of Americans want. Yes, it will cost a little money but in the long-term it will be more efficient and save money for both citizens and government - at least that is what happened in the various models used by other developed countries.
We dont know that it will be more efficient or cost less. We just know that's what proponents of govt healthcare say. There is literally thousands of factors to consider before any claims can be made.
Agreed, it will be complicated but you can use other developed countries as a template. Many of the same arguments and scare tactics were used by opponents of government health care in Canada in the 60's. Today it is one of the institutions most Canadians hold most dear and Tommy Douglas was listed as the greatest Canadian statesman on a recent national poll. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Canadian
Even if what you say is true, Medicare costs are negotiated. The hospital may have billed that amount but will only be paid a predetermined amount by Medicare.
First, end all tax payer subsidies for all that contributes to sickness. (Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions looked at what 10,000 Americans reported eating in a single day, from 2001 to 2006. They then calculated how much of their diets were made up of food subsidized by the government, including corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy and livestock. While those may sound healthy, they’re typically not eaten in their whole-food form; rather, they’re turned into cattle feed or refined and converted into sweeteners (like high fructose corn syrup) and processed fatty foods.) Remove conflict of interest in the FDA. Executives from Monsanto or Pharm companies should automatically be disqualified for an FDA position. (Over the past decades, at least seven high-ranking employees in the FDA have an employment history with the Monsanto Company.) That would be a start.
But getting rid of subsidies is not going to get rid of, for example, soda so there is no prevention in your plan. Soda will still exist and be consumed. Processed fatty foods will still exist and be consumed. That crap isn't going anywhere. How is removing conflict of interest going to prevent people from consuming crap?
A number of people claim that would never go to a hospital. But it is guaranteed if you are found unconscious somewhere, you will be taken to a hospital ER, and tested in many ways, even if you come to and demand to leave. Enough to testing has to be done to ensure the patient is in their right mind. Thats going to be $30,000, minimum and likely quite a bit more by double or triple that amount. But, just like illegals, those two "patriots" who refuse to buy health insurance, they both have all their assets are in corporations or other hidey holes and stiff the system anyway.
