KAM1138
|
08/25/2009, 10:47 AM
#1623
 Originally Posted by davidra
Exactly as I stated. You have a completely different world view, and frankly, your questions are not worth answering, because you don't listen. I was not responding to you alone when I raised the issue about education, but the generally held belief by conservatives that there should be no federal involvement in education.
We do have a different world view, but that's not the problem. You constantly seek to deflect and blame instead of engaging in conversation. You are blaming me for not listening, but I'm here specifically listening I asked you direct questions related to claims you've made, and you don't want to answer. Why not just be honest and say you don't want to answer, and stand by it instead of trying to fabricate some blame you can project on me. Can't you take responsibility for your refusal to answer questions without blaming me? Answer the question or don't, but don't hand me this "You don't listen" nonsense.
 Originally Posted by davidra
For you to say that the current system failed because of government contribution to the system is laughable, and just proves that you are uninformed. The current system failed because health care costs have gone up and up with no end in sight. I'm pretty sure I never said a thing about doctors being innocent in all this; in fact, they are a major impediment, especially the ones who aren't interested in reform. Everybody can take credit for screwing this one up, including the demanding of patients who want care they read about on the web and in advertisements that has not been proven effective....but they want "the best".
Oh yes, that's right--anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed.
I believe my point was that the system has failed--that's what everyone is saying right? Well, what system is in place? It isn't a free market system. It is a system where government is the single largest payer (correct?) You've just said the costs have gone up and up--right. Why? The existing system has led us to where we are, and that is a system in which the government is heavily involved, so it is entirely reasonable to question whether or not they are part of the problem. You refuse to consider this and seem to support government's attempt to gain more control over it. Their involvement has NOT led to lower costs or more efficiency. You say it is laughable that their involvement has led to failure. Why? Why do you seek to excuse their involvement and hold them blameless?
They are the ones failing to provide services to the poor despite spending 300 billion a year. What should we do? Just say "ok, that's fine." Or should we actually seek to REALLY reform things?
Another thing that I need to remind you of apparently "Government contribution" is really taxpayer contribution. I'm not sure if you realize that all of that "public" money is really taxation of private money.
As far as Doctor's part in this--no, I don't believe you said they are innocent, but you choose to point fingers at Drug companies. You point out part of the problem which forwards that notion and omits the other. You choose to emphasize what you do, so you can't blame me for bringing up other elements.
 Originally Posted by davidra
If you don't see that Medicare Part D is a ruse that takes your money and pays full price....full price, mind you....with no possibility of negotiation...and gives it to pharmaceutical companies, and you don't find anything nauseating about that, then how would you describe your reaction to it? You think it's a good way to run a business? How can you expect Medicare to be solvent when this kind of crap is forced on it?
I never said I supported it or wanted it. I noted that apparently some people find it beneficial, or they wouldn't use it. As a general note, I'm not generally in favor of government taking my money and wasting it. Again, you are really eager to assume things and draw conclusions that aren't based on what I've said. You on the other hand seem to be in favor of government taking money from individuals and using it to pay for others (in this case medication), so I'm not sure what the root of your opposition is, if it provides things to others.
You, who have noted how poorly government handles things (this prescription drug benefit) want to expand government (this same, inefficient, mismanaging government) and increase their involvement. Again, your views seem contradictory.
 Originally Posted by davidra
Opponents to the current plans for reform seem to think that by doing nothing to control costs, and mouthing some platitudes about the marketplace, that corporate business will be the answer to this problem. That's a very sad joke.
You claim they seek to do nothing to control costs and that the market will be ineffective. I think you are wrong. You don't define reality, but apparently you think you do. Just because you say opponents of current plans for "reform" have no ideas doesn't make it true. You insist on holding onto your perspective, and you can feel free, but I have no reason to agree with you, because I think you are wrong. You have a problem with free markets for healthcare (as you stated earlier) and I don't. I actually advocated a reduction in "corporate" involvement and an increase in individual involvement, but you don't seem to realize that or you oppose it (not sure which).
It seems you distrust corporations, and the individual, so you turn to the government. I disagree with that idea and think it will be harmful. That path is one of cost controls which is a flawed philosophy. It rarely if ever works. Free markets on the other hand very often do work, and I think have a very good chance of working with healthcare. At a minimum it is an idea worth considering.
 Originally Posted by davidra
There is only one way to control costs in this situation, and that is by rigorous management of care. And guess what? You won't like it, whether it's private, as it was in the early '90's, or public as it might be with Medicare. Your private insurance will need to use gatekeepers. You will not be able to just go to an orthopedist whenever you want; you will have to be referred. You cannot get any medication you want if a lower-cost alternative is demonstrated to be just as effective. You may need to wait an extra week to get your hip replaced, and you might even have to have that exercise test that you wanted "just to be on the safe side" disapproved. And these controls need to take place not in the public option alone, but in all insurance plans everywhere. That is the ONLY way to control costs. Most doctors won't like it either. Reimbursement decreased? Fine. Works for me, as long as I can support my employees and put my kids through school, and go fishing every now and then. But it won't support yachts and Porsche Cayennes for most primary care docs, but they don't get those most of the time anyway. Rather it's the insurance company executives that drive those vehicles.
I'd be really interested in hearing how much profit is gained by all insurance executives and how much total is gained by doctors. Somehow I'm guessing doctors own plenty of yachts. They're all profiting at my expense beyond what is reasonable for the services I'm provided. I'm trapped in the system that doctors, insurance companies and government has orchestrated. I want to stop being victimized by all of them, but I have to fight people--these so-called reformers who wants to hand complete control over to the government so I have ZERO choice, rather than limited choices I've got now.
Again, as you should be aware if you are listening, I'm advocating a reduction in big government and big corporate involvement. You are right--I don't like insurance companies or government being a middle man. I want to deal with my doctor directly, and if he won't provide services in a fair and reasonable manner, he won't remain my doctor for long. Currently, the existing insurance system blocks this, as does government where they are the middle man. Both are indirect payment systems and I want to reduce that as much as possible. You seem to be (as a supporter of "reform) advocating a reduction in corporate involvement, but a massive expansion of government involvement. What you advocate is frying pan into the fire as I see it.
 Originally Posted by davidra
I just don't know how to say it any more clearly. You simply don't see things like I do, and you're not ever going to understand what I'm saying, any more than I'm going to agree with you that private enterprise is the solution to this problem.
Apparently, you aren't even aware of what my position is. You keep saying I don't understand what you are saying. You are wrong, I just disagree with you, but your arrogance apparently doesn't enable you to comprehend that.
 Originally Posted by davidra
They were the cause of the problem, along with lack of appropriate controls over reimbursement and the lack of any kind of organized system. There's plenty of blame to go around, from patients to doctors to hospitals to pharmaceutical companies to private insurers. The question is what do we do about it, and I just don't think that most republicans even identify the problem....because they don't have it. I'm longing to find one person who has no insurance and had to actually pay for their own care, or who has been denied by a plan they have paid a lot for, who will come out strongly against health care reform. Try facing bankruptcy, and it's amazing how fast your perspective and politics can change.
We believe there is plenty of blame to go around.I believe that insurance companies and government--as indirect payment schemers are to blame largely for the skyrocketing costs. It was never a sustainable scheme and won't be made sustainable by shifting it totally to the government. It seems that you believe that if you merely shift the manager of the inherently failed system, that it will suddenly work. That's not true. You are advocating delving further into failure.
You seem to have convinced yourself that this current "reform" will improve things. I think you are wrong. I think you are demanding we "reform" ourselves deeper into a system that is bankrupting people. You aren't advocating reform or changing any of the inherent problems--you are just seeking to change the manager. Government involvement in health care has not improved things, but you seem to want to put all our eggs in that basket anyway. Non-free market, non-competitive, cost manipulated systems are what we have now. This is the system in which a crisis has occurred. I advocate getting away from this system as much as possible, so we have a chance to stop repeating the same failures.
You don't like that idea--fine. In my view, it doesn't make you a reformer--it makes you a willing participant in the problem, seeking to protect one of the major culprits and expand their role, while blaming others. You are ignoring a major problem, and hoping it will all turn out ok.
If all you've got to say is "You don't understand" then don't bother replying. I understand what you've said--I don't agree with you. If you can't accept that others disagree with you, and deal with them honestly, then that's your issue.
KAM
|
|
|