Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialized medicine is better

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 8:29:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
After much research, I have come to the sobering and unlikely conclusion that socialized medicine is better. Compare the systems of Canada and the US, Canada is infinitely times more better and they spend less on healthcare per capita.
Also, people have the right to healthcare. In a free market system, companies will not insure sick people, the ones who need the most help.

Thoughts?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:26:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://angrybear.blogspot.com...
==Government spending increases health outcomes more than private spending

http://prorev.com...
^Medicare more preferred and better than private insurance and cheaper.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov...
==Medicare costs per beneficiary since 1970 have been 1.1% less than the private market.
==If the private markets cost inflation equaled that of Medicare private insurance would cost 44% less than it does today.
--or it would cost .8 trillion less.

http://www.dailykos.com...
^Nevada's government employee's public option cost 24% less than private insurance.

http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
^3 studies show VA has better care than private hospitals, and costs less even though it treats older, sicker patients.
^VA health care delivers about 30% better quality care than private health care.
^VA Costs 40% less than private health care.

http://crooksandliars.com...
^Government health centers cost 41% less than private hospitals.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com...
==Public spending is 1:.71 more efficient in health outcomes then private spending.

http://www.dailykos.com...
^Medicare has better quality health care than the private sector.
-Medicare is accepted by 70% more physicians
-40% more Medicare patients report excellent care.
-37% more Medicare patients report getting needed care.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...
^America's non universal health care system decreases job mobility by 25%.
This decreases self-employed entrepreneurship by 20%. Job lock also keeps workers in areas where they are least efficient harming productivity.
^So universal health care would increase the number of small businesses by 20%. Research done by Alison Wellington.

http://www.rand.org...
^A rand study finds comparable results, finding that universal health care would increase the rate of small businesses by a little less than 20%

http://www.reuters.com...
^United states is ranked last on health care outcomes among 16 nations. Canada is 10th.

America spends 3.08 times more on health care per capita. Individual countries.
1) Canada gets 30% more medical service for every dollar it spends than America does.
http://www.openmedicine.ca...
Canada overall has higher survival rates in the medical field and better care.
3) American has the longest wait times. Canada has the 2nd longest yet their median wait times for elective surgeries were half that of Americans.

http://www.foxnews.com..., 2933, 136990, 00.html
==Americans satisfied with health care less than other countries.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...
==37% of Americans don't get care, compared to 5% of candidaians. American number is deflated because you have to have Care to know you need more.

http://www.openmedicine.ca...
==Comparisons of 38 studies on Canada and USA health care, finds Canada has better results.

http://www.allcountries.org...
http://www.reuters.com...
==USA worst in preventable deaths.
==If USA was at the average 75,000 less people would die a year.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.casavaria.com...
==Around 100,000 people die a year because of America's health care system.

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com...
==2 million Americans go bankrupt from medical bills each year.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
^3 times the amount of people in America say they spent excessive time on paper work for health care.
^Also 3 times the amount of people in America said they had claims denied. Compared to other 1st world countries.

http://assets.opencrs.com...
1) USA spends 150% more than the OCED average.
2) OCED has 33% more patients
3) OCED has 71% more doctor visits
4) OCED has 25% more doctors
5 OCED has 46% more hospital beds
6) OCED has 75% less deaths due to medical errors

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
^Americans are 160% more likely to not get health care due to cost. 54% of Americans don't get some form of care because of cost

http://www.dailykos.com...-
^Private insurance companies reject 22% of claims.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
==1) American's want their health care system changed more than two times the amount that people in "socialized medicine" countries do.
2) Americans report 50% more medical errors then those in socialized medicine countries.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
http://www.who.int...
http://assets.opencrs.com...
http://www.oecd.org...
==Academic standards show America has worse healthcare then other countries.
USA compared to government health care. (all statistics are per capita).
Where America is worse.
1) America has 50% more Medical errors.
2) America is worst in preventable deaths. If America was like government health care 200,000 people would be saved a year.
3) America has 2 million more medical bankruptcies compared to 0.
4) America has 26% less doctors.
5) America has 4% less nurses.
6) America has 46% less hospital beds.
7) America saw half the life expectancy change than countries who changed to government health care.
8) Infant mortality rates are 17% higher in America.
9) America has 100% less Psychiatric care beds.
10) America has 20% less people who go to hospitals.
11) America has 26% more years of life lost due to medical reasons.
12) America has 40% more Respiratory deaths
13) US Tuberculosis treatment success is 10% less
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 11:48:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Obamacare increases the Demand, without increasing the Supply. This leads to a higher equilibrium of Price and Quantity.

Obamacare eventually leads to a decrease in supply due to the strain of increased demand. This leads to a higher price and lower quantity.

We already have a medical shortage of doctors and supplies in this country, which leads to higher prices. Putting more strain on the supply with an increased demand would cause prices to skyrocket, and lead to rationing.

The problem is not coverage, it's doctors, and medicines. Many of my prescriptions I have been taking for years, have stopped being produced due to profit losses, so I know first hand that the supply is decreasing, and the prices are already at a breaking point trying to accommodate customers.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:19:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think you have thought this through.

First, lets get this "health care is a right" crap out of the way. What makes Health Care a right?

A right is:

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory."

Now, since health care is a thing, a resource. It is a positive right. This means that it does not simpy require non action from others, but it actually requires other people to provide something.

So, if Health Care is a right, that means people are entitled to or owed health care. And, the provider of the Health Care would be society, throug the state.... So, the idea is that society owes every person health care.

Now, what is a person?

A person is simply the scientific resuly of unprotected sex. THat is all. So, saying that society owes someone something is like saying that society owes every person child support, for whatever reason.

So, if irresponsible people have a shiitload of unprotected sex, society is going to ow a lot more to a lot more people. And, of course, Health care is a limited resource, as in there is not unlimited supply, so this creates major issues...

So, in conclusions, rights cant really exist... But, rights to stuff really cant exist

Now, as for your other points... Canadians live longer and spend less... Well, we know the reason they live longer is less homicide, less ethnic diversity, and less obesity.. nothing to do with Socialized Health Care system....

They have lower prices because the state artificually holds down prices, creating chronic shortages and decaying quality....

And, dont forget, the US system has a lot of stae intervention, which is actuallly the cause of huge prices....
President of DDO
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:22:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 11:48:25 AM, DanT wrote:
<b>1)</b> Obamacare increases the Demand, without increasing the Supply. This leads to a higher equilibrium of Price and Quantity.

<b>2) </b>Obamacare eventually leads to a decrease in supply due to the strain of increased demand. This leads to a higher price and lower quantity.

<b>3)</b> We already have a medical shortage of doctors and supplies in this country, which leads to higher prices. Putting more strain on the supply with an increased demand would cause prices to skyrocket, and lead to rationing.


I added <b>1)</b> to your post to help with organization. I ask you to please maintain these numbers so that we can stay organized.

<b>1)</b> ObamaCare will provide near 35million people with the ability to purchase health insurance this by itself will result in more money going to the health sector which means an increase in health infrastructure, and doctors.
Also Mass implemented these same reforms and NON of the problems you are suggesting happened to them.

<b>2) </b>Obama's health policies actually does a wide variety of things that will improve health quality and lower its costs. This includes (list not in any specific order):
a) Investments in community health centers
b) Adaption of computerized records and other computerized technology.
c) Reduction in drug patients.
d) Requiring insurance companies to have less profit and administrative costs and more health benefits
e) Investments into comparative effectiveness research
f) Switches health care payment mechanism to make ti more bundled and more based on health outcomes
g) A pigovian tax on tanning booths
h) A pigovian tax on wasteful health plans (IE high medical loss ratio)
i) Mandated food labeling
j) A medical board whose sole purpose is to improve quality of care while reducing costs
Once you take into account all these things Obama's health polices do total health spending will actually decrease even as we expand care to 35 million more people.

<b>3)</b> This makes no sense. You are saying that in order to avoid rationing health care we have to ration health care. The only difference is that rationing currently is done by insurance companies based on how much money they can make, while under ObamaCare it will be based on which practices work best and what doctors want.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:31:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no private health care in the US, there's only two flavors of socialized. So-called "Private" health care has been regulated in a manner reminiscent of making someone sleep in a dog cage and only taking them out for their daily rape.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:32:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think the main problem with our system here in Canada is a lack of medical professionals so wait times are longer. At least everybody gets treated though. I have actually heard stories about people in the US being denied care because they couldn't afford insurance. As somebody who grew up in a poorer family and had a lot of health problems as a child, I'm incredibly thankful for Canada's system. It would be political suicide for any of the politicians to privatize it too since most Canadians are pretty happy with it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 12:36:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since you seem to like links more than arguments:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:02:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.

So according to you drug companies sell drugs to Americans at higher costs because they sell drugs to Europeans at such a low rate that if they didn't sell them to Americans they would lose money. Why is it that drug companies hate American? Better yet make your stupid comment make sense.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:04:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:36:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Since you seem to like links more than arguments:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com...
Its not links i like its facts, evidence and reality something you obviously dislike.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:17:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:32:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I think the main problem with our system here in Canada is a lack of medical professionals so wait times are longer. At least everybody gets treated though. I have actually heard stories about people in the US being denied care because they couldn't afford insurance. As somebody who grew up in a poorer family and had a lot of health problems as a child, I'm incredibly thankful for Canada's system. It would be political suicide for any of the politicians to privatize it too since most Canadians are pretty happy with it.

The only reason there are longer lines in Canada is because in the US, 1/3 of the people are not getting in line because they have no insurance. So what happens is that they wait until they have to go to the ER, which is very expensive. Since they couldn't afford insurace to start with, they can't afford the ER costs and default on that debt. The hospital is stuck eatting it, and to make up for it, they have to raise the costs on everything else. Then insurance companies have to pay these higher costs, and pass those higher costs on to those that are actually covered (and take a little profit boost of their own).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:31:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In a free market system, companies will not insure sick people, the ones who need the most help.

This. This is the big thing. In a private system, insurance companies have an incentive to insure only low-risk people - i.e. people who are unlikely to actually need the insurance money. People who desperately need health insurance will either be denied insurance or charged unaffordably high prices.
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 1:44:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:31:55 PM, Kinesis wrote:
In a free market system, companies will not insure sick people, the ones who need the most help.

This. This is the big thing. In a private system, insurance companies have an incentive to insure only low-risk people - i.e. people who are unlikely to actually need the insurance money. People who desperately need health insurance will either be denied insurance or charged unaffordably high prices.

I don't see a problem with that, sick and poor can receive charity money. In other words, there's no need to tax the average family.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 2:43:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:44:06 PM, Jon1 wrote:
At 11/18/2011 1:31:55 PM, Kinesis wrote:
In a free market system, companies will not insure sick people, the ones who need the most help.

This. This is the big thing. In a private system, insurance companies have an incentive to insure only low-risk people - i.e. people who are unlikely to actually need the insurance money. People who desperately need health insurance will either be denied insurance or charged unaffordably high prices.

I don't see a problem with that, sick and poor can receive charity money. In other words, there's no need to tax the average family.

So basically you believe the sick and poor should just die. Awesome! What a utopia!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 3:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 12:22:17 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 11:48:25 AM, DanT wrote:
1) Obamacare increases the Demand, without increasing the Supply. This leads to a higher equilibrium of Price and Quantity.

2) Obamacare eventually leads to a decrease in supply due to the strain of increased demand. This leads to a higher price and lower quantity.

3) We already have a medical shortage of doctors and supplies in this country, which leads to higher prices. Putting more strain on the supply with an increased demand would cause prices to skyrocket, and lead to rationing.


I added 1) to your post to help with organization. I ask you to please maintain these numbers so that we can stay organized.

1) ObamaCare will provide near 35million people with the ability to purchase health insurance this by itself will result in more money going to the health sector which means an increase in health infrastructure, and doctors.
Also Mass implemented these same reforms and NON of the problems you are suggesting happened to them.

2) Obama's health policies actually does a wide variety of things that will improve health quality and lower its costs. This includes (list not in any specific order):
a) Investments in community health centers
b) Adaption of computerized records and other computerized technology.
c) Reduction in drug patients.
d) Requiring insurance companies to have less profit and administrative costs and more health benefits
e) Investments into comparative effectiveness research
f) Switches health care payment mechanism to make ti more bundled and more based on health outcomes
g) A pigovian tax on tanning booths
h) A pigovian tax on wasteful health plans (IE high medical loss ratio)
i) Mandated food labeling
j) A medical board whose sole purpose is to improve quality of care while reducing costs
Once you take into account all these things Obama's health polices do total health spending will actually decrease even as we expand care to 35 million more people.

3) This makes no sense. You are saying that in order to avoid rationing health care we have to ration health care. The only difference is that rationing currently is done by insurance companies based on how much money they can make, while under ObamaCare it will be based on which practices work best and what doctors want.

1.) Obama care does not increase the number of doctors, if anything it decreases the number of doctors. Why? because it increases the number of law suits against doctors, through tighter regulation, and more clients. What we need is tort reform, because currently the system is being abused and frivilous law suits are being filed against doctors simply for the cash. My old doctor shot himself because someone filed a friviloius lawsuit, and a couple hundred people jumped on the band wagon. The court cost alone was putting his family in a serious finacial burdern, so he shot himself. He was a good doctor, and is a great example of how this system is F***ed up.

2.)
a) this doesn't reduce the cost, it puts the burden on the tax payer
b) this does not reduce the cost, it only makes records more orginized
c) By reduction in drug patients, I assume you mean tigher regulations on prescriptions. This just makes it harder to treat patients, and makes it more easier for doctors to be sued. Thus reduces the number of prescription writing doctors.
d) This limits insurance company's ability to compete, and may put some companies out of bussiness.
e) This puts a greater finacial burden on drug companies. As I stated before, this kind of stuff leads to medication going offline due to loss of profit.
f) This doesn't take into consideration chronic illnesses, or undiagnoised illnesses. Thus hurts the doctors, and insurance companies.
g) This raises the cost of tans, and has nothing to do with healthcare.
h) define "wasteful health plans", and again it is harmful to inssurance companies.
i) This doesn't help cost, and very few people look at food labels to begin with.
j) A medical board that's sole purpose is to "reducing costs" would lead to rationing of treatment. It is seen in every National Healthcare system. These boards are set up, and they begin to ration care.

3.) That is not what I said. What I said was we need to increase the supply before introducing more people to a market already stretched thin. By increasing the suppy we decrease the cost, and more people can naturally afford their own healthcare. All Obamacare will do is watse money supplying rationed care, while increasing the cost for everyone.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 4:25:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A single payer system can reduce costs since its essentially the same thing as a monopoly, except the buyer has all the power instead of the consumer. It's essential just means that doctors will make less money, and considering they already make a ton, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:48:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1)A) Increases in health spending means hospitals get more money meaning if there is too much demand and not enough supply they will purchase new X-rays, new offices and hire new doctors. However you are slightly correct given that If currently there is enough supply to accommodate 35 million new people there will be no increase in doctors or infrastructure given that it would not be needed. <b> I again repeat MASS implemented these reform and none of these bad things you say happened, basically meaning that you're whole position is devoid of reality. </b>
B) Name a single new regulation that increases law suits against doctors. And are you seriously suggesting that expanding health care to 35 million people is bad because there will be more malpractice? I mean are you really telling us that having health care is bad because a doctor might screw up?
C) You are incorrect basically on everything you've said about tort reform and malpractice. Here are the facts:
==malpractice claims have decreased 45 percent since 2000.
==malpractice payouts have been decreasing since 2000
==Tort reform in states has failed to have positive effect.
In some cases such as Iowa and Missouri, Iowa's malpractice premiums fell 6% while Missouri saw them increase 1% even though Missouri had tort reform laws.
==5% of doctor's account for 55% of malpractice suits.
==Only 2% of suable offensive actually result in a malpractice suit.
==malpractice accounts for 1% of health care costs
http://www.insurance-reform.org...
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...
http://www.joepaduda.com...

2)A) The 18 billion Investments made into communist health centers will save a total of 180 billion dollars.
http://www.aafp.org...
B) Computerized records has been shown to reduce medical errors by 50% and total savings from computerized and upgrading health care facilities technology could reach 250 billion a year.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
C) No I mean drug patents(automatic spell checked made it spelt he wrong word) time are decreased for some drugs by 2 years which means more generic drugs which are cheaper.
D) That is the point. We want to weed out insurance companies that can't be efficient; and waste lots of money. Why do you think making it so insurance companines cant waste money is a bad thing?
E) That is the point. Under comparative effectiveness research we find out which drugs and medial procedures work the best. I'm curious why you think people should die and money should be wasted on treatments that don't work because you say we can't hurt crappy corporations who produced crappy products.
F) Actually it takes into considering chronic conditions better than the current system because if you go in for a heart problem and then they release you and then you go in the next day for a heart problem it makes it so they are paid less because you had to come in again. All the evidence and the experts agree that this will improve the quality of health care and reduce costs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
G) Tanning is a major cause of skin cancer, raising the cost of tanning reduces the amount of tans people get meaning less skin cancer meaning less need to pay for skin cancer treatments. Are you even trying because you're displaying huge amounts of pure ignorance?
H) Can you not read I already explained it; plans that have high medical loss ratios.
I) Food labeling results in 15% of people using that information to eat healthier and reduce caloric intake by 106 calories per meal. This means healthier people who need less health care.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
J) So according to you a medical board made of doctors and experts who are legal disallowed to ration are going to ration. These boards are set up to weed out medial practices that DO NOT WORK. It is beyond me how you think not using drugs and practices that are ineffective and don't work is a bad thing.

3)This is what you said, "We already have a medical shortage of doctors and supplies in this country, which leads to higher prices. Putting more strain on the supply with an increased demand would cause prices to skyrocket, and lead to rationing."

You are saying that we can't let 35 million people have health care because it could result in people not getting health care. You are telling us that we have to ration care because if we don't we might have to ration care.
The reason you are confused is because you don't know what "ration" means and are just parroting some talking points you heard.

Obamcare slowly increased the new subsides for health insurance and slowly increased the number of people insured, meaning your whole "it will put a shock and increase demand" isn't relevant to the realities of the implementation of Obamacare, not to mention the fact that all analysis of Obamacare shows that it will decrease total health spending even as we expand access to 35 million more people. And also not to mention the fact that the state of Massuchechets implemented these same reforms and they encountered no problems.

So basically you as I've proven are just completely ignorant about the whole subject; and have no idea what you are talking about, proven by the fact that you don't know what "ration" means.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 7:09:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:02:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.

So according to you drug companies sell drugs to Americans at higher costs because they sell drugs to Europeans at such a low rate that if they didn't sell them to Americans they would lose money. Why is it that drug companies hate American? Better yet make your stupid comment make sense.

It's called price discrimination. It's a well documented phenomena. A lot of the money goes into research and development, so they are able to profit off the sales. it's called economics of scale and high fixed costs.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 7:35:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 5:48:58 PM, Willoweed wrote:
1)A) Increases in health spending means hospitals get more money meaning if there is too much demand and not enough supply they will purchase new X-rays, new offices and hire new doctors. However you are slightly correct given that If currently there is enough supply to accommodate 35 million new people there will be no increase in doctors or infrastructure given that it would not be needed. <b> I again repeat MASS implemented these reform and none of these bad things you say happened, basically meaning that you're whole position is devoid of reality. </b>
B) Name a single new regulation that increases law suits against doctors. And are you seriously suggesting that expanding health care to 35 million people is bad because there will be more malpractice? I mean are you really telling us that having health care is bad because a doctor might screw up?
C) You are incorrect basically on everything you've said about tort reform and malpractice. Here are the facts:
==malpractice claims have decreased 45 percent since 2000.
==malpractice payouts have been decreasing since 2000
==Tort reform in states has failed to have positive effect.
In some cases such as Iowa and Missouri, Iowa's malpractice premiums fell 6% while Missouri saw them increase 1% even though Missouri had tort reform laws.
==5% of doctor's account for 55% of malpractice suits.
==Only 2% of suable offensive actually result in a malpractice suit.
==malpractice accounts for 1% of health care costs
http://www.insurance-reform.org...
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org...
http://www.joepaduda.com...

2)A) The 18 billion Investments made into communist health centers will save a total of 180 billion dollars.
http://www.aafp.org...
B) Computerized records has been shown to reduce medical errors by 50% and total savings from computerized and upgrading health care facilities technology could reach 250 billion a year.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
C) No I mean drug patents(automatic spell checked made it spelt he wrong word) time are decreased for some drugs by 2 years which means more generic drugs which are cheaper.
D) That is the point. We want to weed out insurance companies that can't be efficient; and waste lots of money. Why do you think making it so insurance companines cant waste money is a bad thing?
E) That is the point. Under comparative effectiveness research we find out which drugs and medial procedures work the best. I'm curious why you think people should die and money should be wasted on treatments that don't work because you say we can't hurt crappy corporations who produced crappy products.
F) Actually it takes into considering chronic conditions better than the current system because if you go in for a heart problem and then they release you and then you go in the next day for a heart problem it makes it so they are paid less because you had to come in again. All the evidence and the experts agree that this will improve the quality of health care and reduce costs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
G) Tanning is a major cause of skin cancer, raising the cost of tanning reduces the amount of tans people get meaning less skin cancer meaning less need to pay for skin cancer treatments. Are you even trying because you're displaying huge amounts of pure ignorance?
H) Can you not read I already explained it; plans that have high medical loss ratios.
I) Food labeling results in 15% of people using that information to eat healthier and reduce caloric intake by 106 calories per meal. This means healthier people who need less health care.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
J) So according to you a medical board made of doctors and experts who are legal disallowed to ration are going to ration. These boards are set up to weed out medial practices that DO NOT WORK. It is beyond me how you think not using drugs and practices that are ineffective and don't work is a bad thing.

3)This is what you said, "We already have a medical shortage of doctors and supplies in this country, which leads to higher prices. Putting more strain on the supply with an increased demand would cause prices to skyrocket, and lead to rationing."

You are saying that we can't let 35 million people have health care because it could result in people not getting health care. You are telling us that we have to ration care because if we don't we might have to ration care.
The reason you are confused is because you don't know what "ration" means and are just parroting some talking points you heard.

Obamcare slowly increased the new subsides for health insurance and slowly increased the number of people insured, meaning your whole "it will put a shock and increase demand" isn't relevant to the realities of the implementation of Obamacare, not to mention the fact that all analysis of Obamacare shows that it will decrease total health spending even as we expand access to 35 million more people. And also not to mention the fact that the state of Massuchechets implemented these same reforms and they encountered no problems.

So basically you as I've proven are just completely ignorant about the whole subject; and have no idea what you are talking about, proven by the fact that you don't know what "ration" means.

Your posts are hurting my eyes. Use the correct codes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 9:29:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 1:02:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.

So according to you drug companies sell drugs to Americans at higher costs because they sell drugs to Europeans at such a low rate that if they didn't sell them to Americans they would lose money. Why is it that drug companies hate American?
Canada, at least, and probably much of Europe too, puts price caps on prescription drugs. They don't sell higher to Americans because they hate America, it's because it's the only place it's legal for them to make such money. If it were not legal to do so in America then the drug companies would not make money on new drugs for reasons Kermit outlined.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 11:10:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 9:29:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 1:02:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.

So according to you drug companies sell drugs to Americans at higher costs because they sell drugs to Europeans at such a low rate that if they didn't sell them to Americans they would lose money. Why is it that drug companies hate American?
Canada, at least, and probably much of Europe too, puts price caps on prescription drugs. They don't sell higher to Americans because they hate America, it's because it's the only place it's legal for them to make such money. If it were not legal to do so in America then the drug companies would not make money on new drugs for reasons Kermit outlined.

The drug companies make money off of drugs in Europe as well as Canada; my point was that they wouldn't sell the drugs if they didn't make money off of them. And frankly the fact is drug companies waste so much money that giving them a haircut wouldn't hurt new drug development it would only eliminate wasteful spending. The extra costs Americans pay only pad profits and wasteful drug spending
=43% of drug companies spending is on marketing/administration/profits
http://www.actupny.org...

Also government research and funding accounts for most new drug discoveries not drug companines.

^55% of the drugs developed in America are researched/funded solely by the government
^Only 22% of new drugs from the private market have therapeutic value.
^67% of the most important/used drugs were funded/developed solely or partial by the government
^The most successful drug companies are ones who use the most government research and drugs.
^The government provides almost all the basic research into medical breakthroughs
^53% of private market medical advancements have little to no therapeutic value another 31% have slight therapeutic value.
http://www.citizen.org...

There are several problems with the private drug company system 1) Is that they hide information and keep information to themselves, meaning new discoveries and data are kept from scientists meaning lots of research is being wasted researching things that have already been discovered.
http://www.ultrawellness.com...
2) drug companies care more about making money then developing drugs and providing health care and have been known to sell drugs that they know are harmful and don't provide health benefits.
http://scienceblog.com...
http://www.economicpopulist.org...
A simple way to fix these problems and save money would be to socialize drug companies and create science hubs for drug research. Considering that government is already better at drug research then drug companies diverting funds from wasteful drug companies to drug research would result in more new drugs. It would also end the sale of new drugs that are known to be harmful or inefficient.

A study analyzing the data concluded that doing the above would result in more new medical breakthroughs despite costing hundreds of billions of dollars less than the status quo.
http://www.cepr.net...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 11:25:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 11:10:02 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:29:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 1:02:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.

So according to you drug companies sell drugs to Americans at higher costs because they sell drugs to Europeans at such a low rate that if they didn't sell them to Americans they would lose money. Why is it that drug companies hate American?
Canada, at least, and probably much of Europe too, puts price caps on prescription drugs. They don't sell higher to Americans because they hate America, it's because it's the only place it's legal for them to make such money. If it were not legal to do so in America then the drug companies would not make money on new drugs for reasons Kermit outlined.

The drug companies make money off of drugs in Europe as well as Canada; my point was that they wouldn't sell the drugs if they didn't make money off of them. And frankly the fact is drug companies waste so much money that giving them a haircut wouldn't hurt new drug development it would only eliminate wasteful spending. The extra costs Americans pay only pad profits and wasteful drug spending
=43% of drug companies spending is on marketing/administration/profits
http://www.actupny.org...

What perecnt of that group is spent on getting drugs approved by the government or other similar activities?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 11:41:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Random statistics are meaningless here. Economics is not a controlled experiment. Furthermore, the statistics you are providing in different terms, you are not comparing the government and the private sector's research on a coherent basis even were controlled experiments on the matter impossible, especially since the "private sector" is so heavily regulated.

If there are high fixed costs, and one country where most of the margin over the non-fixed costs comes from, that country is paying the fixed costs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Jon1
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 2:46:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't see a problem with that, sick and poor can receive charity money. In other words, there's no need to tax the average family.

So basically you believe the sick and poor should just die. Awesome! What a utopia!

No, I just dislike theft.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 7:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 11:41:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Random statistics are meaningless here. Economics is not a controlled experiment. Furthermore, the statistics you are providing in different terms, you are not comparing the government and the private sector's research on a coherent basis even were controlled experiments on the matter impossible, especially since the "private sector" is so heavily regulated.

If there are high fixed costs, and one country where most of the margin over the non-fixed costs comes from, that country is paying the fixed costs.
Random? Can you not read?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 7:16:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 11:41:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If there are high fixed costs, and one country where most of the margin over the non-fixed costs comes from, that country is paying the fixed costs.

You mean like when the USA subsidizes many socialized health plans in other countries through their military contributions... essentially providing free protection?

That's an old argument Ragnar.
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 7:18:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/18/2011 11:25:21 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 11:10:02 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:29:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 1:02:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.

So according to you drug companies sell drugs to Americans at higher costs because they sell drugs to Europeans at such a low rate that if they didn't sell them to Americans they would lose money. Why is it that drug companies hate American?
Canada, at least, and probably much of Europe too, puts price caps on prescription drugs. They don't sell higher to Americans because they hate America, it's because it's the only place it's legal for them to make such money. If it were not legal to do so in America then the drug companies would not make money on new drugs for reasons Kermit outlined.

The drug companies make money off of drugs in Europe as well as Canada; my point was that they wouldn't sell the drugs if they didn't make money off of them. And frankly the fact is drug companies waste so much money that giving them a haircut wouldn't hurt new drug development it would only eliminate wasteful spending. The extra costs Americans pay only pad profits and wasteful drug spending
=43% of drug companies spending is on marketing/administration/profits
http://www.actupny.org...

What perecnt of that group is spent on getting drugs approved by the government or other similar activities?
You mean like clinical trials that show that the drugs aren't dangerous, and actually produce benefits?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2011 8:55:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/19/2011 7:18:40 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 11:25:21 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 11/18/2011 11:10:02 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 9:29:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/18/2011 1:02:53 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 11/18/2011 12:33:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, health care everywhere else is subsidized by prescriptions drugs developed when America is the main place to make a profit on them.

So according to you drug companies sell drugs to Americans at higher costs because they sell drugs to Europeans at such a low rate that if they didn't sell them to Americans they would lose money. Why is it that drug companies hate American?
Canada, at least, and probably much of Europe too, puts price caps on prescription drugs. They don't sell higher to Americans because they hate America, it's because it's the only place it's legal for them to make such money. If it were not legal to do so in America then the drug companies would not make money on new drugs for reasons Kermit outlined.

The drug companies make money off of drugs in Europe as well as Canada; my point was that they wouldn't sell the drugs if they didn't make money off of them. And frankly the fact is drug companies waste so much money that giving them a haircut wouldn't hurt new drug development it would only eliminate wasteful spending. The extra costs Americans pay only pad profits and wasteful drug spending
=43% of drug companies spending is on marketing/administration/profits
http://www.actupny.org...

What perecnt of that group is spent on getting drugs approved by the government or other similar activities?
You mean like clinical trials that show that the drugs aren't dangerous, and actually produce benefits?

That's part of it, but more specifically, how much is simply getting it approved by the government? There's a lot of paperwork involved solely for that process, irrelevant to it being safe. A lot of people end up dying who could have been saved by medicine in the process of getting approved by the FDA.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.