 |
For years, I accompanied my WWII vet uncle (who had a nice nest egg) to a nearby VA hospital for checkups and ongoing care, even as an in-patient. I was always impressed by the courtesy and care he received, from the receptionist to the technicians to the doctors.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
My experiences with the VA and SS so far have been above reproach. My younger son has worked for a total of twelve years for two large, well-known companies and has often mentioned their inefficiencies. You don't think corporate America is guilty of such?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Of course it is. But excon's solution to corporate inefficiency was government intervention. And my point is that no matter how inefficient corporate America can be, the government is MUCH worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I have never seen a corporation spend $500 for a $2 hammer, have you?
I have never seen a corporate entity that was $42 Trillion in debt with no assets remain in business. But the SS Aministration does it.
I have never seen a corporate agency that continually loses money for their business partners continue to get funding from its investors and do business wth those partners. But Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are costing states huge amounts of losses every year continue to receive federal and state dollars and continue to operate in those states.
Corporate entities that waste so much money that they go broke go out of business. Government agencies that waste so much money that they go broke get emergency appropriations from Congress and continue to lose money.
There is a magnitude of difference between corporate inefficiency and government inefficiency.
Elliot
Evening Elliot
I am sure you can recognise that when a committee, organisation or a government is repsosible for spending money they will do so with peoples interest at heart
When a company spends money, a board or single person makes that decision with purely the bottom line in mind
Therefore there will always be a gap between efficiency of a company and a government
Do you accept that point of view?
Steve
Actually, I recognize the exact opposite. NOBODY spends money with the interest of other people's interests at heart. Even charitable organizations do it because there's something in it for them. And governments are probably the worst...Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
When a government agency spends money, they do it for one of two reasons... either to gain additional power for itself, or to create social engineerring. Usually the social engineering is done so that they can gain additional power for themselves.Quote:
When a company spends money, a board or single person makes that decision with purely the bottom line in mind
Sure, I can accept that there is a REASON that governments are less efficient than businesses (though I don't agree that it is a good reason). But if, as excon has argued, the point of health care reform is to make it more EFFICIENT in order to make it more affordable through less wasteful spending, then nationalizing the system is counter-productive to that goal. Can you understand the logic of that position?Quote:
Therefore there will always be a gap between efficiency of a company and a government
Do you accept that point of view?
Steve
Elliot
I can and I do agree, Politicians and their organisations should never run anything
However, I think on some levels, you should never let a business run it either
A business is never answerable to the people, governments are
Governments can't work efficiently, businessess can
And yet these are the two choices available to everyone
So what would you suggest to make the givernment more efficient?
I ask, because we all know, another level of administration hikes the price even further
Steve
No. They use 4"x4" Post-It Notes when 2"x2" ones would suffice. Don't even ask about our paperless corporations that buy tons and tons of copier and printer paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
What about $40 for an aspirin?
Hello again:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
This from a fellow who calls emergency rooms EFFICIENT if the doctors work EFFICIENTLY. It doesn't occur to him that treating people for a cold in the emergency room ISN'T EFFICIENT, no matter HOW well organized the doctor is.
Believe what he says about EFFICIENCY, at your own risk.
I WILL provide the link, if the Wolverine denies he said it.
excon
The only differnce I can think off between a company and government is this
A company will spend money to earn money, so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves
A government will spend money to earn praise, and regardless of how much they spend, they still get paid at the end of the week
I think until a politician has to account for his expenses every week to then provide his wages at the end of it, the system of overspend will never change
I also find it interesting that regardless of country, cultural back ground, all governments follow the same pattern
So it is a by product of the system, and I can't see anything out there that will alter it
You hit on something important here... corporations worry about their bottoms lines and so they SPEND LESS to maximize that bottom line. Whereas governments do not have to watch the bottom line... in fact, they have a spend-it-or-lose-it policy here in the USA. Whatever they don't spend won't be budgeted to them next year, so they spend every penny they get and MORE to justify the need for a larger budget next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
Which means that a government will ALWAYS overspend, whereas a corporation will always try to MINIMIZE spending.
Guess which of these results in lower costs to the consumer.
Elliot
You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You know Elliot, you guys speak with a different accent, and yet we are kin
It is exactly the same here in the UK, most of Europe is the same, with eastern blocks emerging as equal partners of the EU, their system of governments are becoming the sameQuote:
they have a spend-it-or-lose-it policy here in the USA
Who started that trend with budgeting, and where do they live :)
Show me a politician and a businessman and I will expose two liarsQuote:
You musta missed this part: "so the less they spend the more money they have at the end of the week to pay themselves." (Psssst, they don't care about the consumer.)
I THINK that it started with the US government, but I'm not sure of that. I have no idea when the UK government started that budgeting practice. I am pretty sure that ALL western governments use the same basic methodology for budgeting... which just proves my point about government in general. Ain't none of 'em that are more efficient than a private sector business.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
So... if your goal is to improve efficiency in order to bring down cost for the consumer (which is excon's main argument in favor of government-run health care) then you are being counter-productive when you hand it over to the government.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
They don't have to "care about the consumer". The result for the consumer occurs whether the business owner cares about the consumer or not. It is a natural byproduct of higher efficiency... both the consumer and the service provider benefit. The consumer pays less for the product and the owner of the business takes home greater profits. BOTH of them benefit.
Part of your problem, Wondergirl, is that you believe that if a business benefits, it must mean that the consumer is bwing screwed over and is losing out. To you, business is a zero-sum game... if one side of the transaction wins, the other side must lose. But that is simply not true. In most transactions, BOTH parties benefit. The guy who sells a car benefits by receiving money... hopefully more money than he paid for the car in the first place. The guy buying the car also benefits by receiving the product that he paid for in good working order. Neither one has been "screwed" in the deal. Both benefit equally. Similarly, when the insurance provider creates greater efficiencies, both he and his customer benefit equally... he increases his profitability, and the consumer pays less for his insurance.
You should really read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", especially the part about the "invisble hand". It explains how people working solely for their own benefit (to make themselves rich) create benefits to others as well (greater efficiencies, new products, lower prices, better services). It is the entire basis for the capitalist system and it has worked in the real world for centuries now. But the basic point I am making is that all parties involved benefit from greater efficiencies and lower pricing... and it doesn't matter whether the insurance company owner CARES for his customers or not.
Elliot
Morning Elliot
I agree with your points on business, I run my own businesses and as such, I do care about the customer, in as much as I want see them benefit from the product I sell
This obviously is a selfish act, as I want them to praise me and my product so word of mouth reputation will make more sales
However, there are certain aspects of business that I don't like when it connects social reform
Don't you think there is a case where business and government can work together to improve the governments effiecently while still leaving a voice for the people to address issues?
I said it, and I stand by the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
In fact, I will say it again...
ERs are, by their very nature, the most efficient part of the American health care system. They are the only part of the medical system that assign the assets of the health care system (doctor's time, medical equipment, drugs, etc.) to their patients based solely on the immediate need of the patients.
That fact cannot be argued... and in fact, excon doesn't even attempt to do so. He knows it to be true.
So... we can have our hypothetical patient with a cold wait in an emergency room, where he will be treated LAST, and only after all the critical and emergent care patients have been treated first.
Or we can have the same patient go to his doctor's office, where he will be treated faster, but on some other basis than immediate need... perhaps it is on a first-come-first-serve basis, or perhaps it is based on his friendship with the doctor, or perhaps on the basis of how much he's willing to pay. In any case, it won't be based on most urgent need.
Now... I happen to think that patients with a cold are better served by going to their private doctor rather than the emergency room. At the very least they will be seen and treated more quickly. However, there is still no question that when you are judging EFFICIENCY of providing medical services, the ER option is STILL more efficient... because all patients, including the patient with the cold, are treated based on actual need.
Excon would like to argue that the doctor's time is being wasted by dealing with the patient with the cold. However, since that patient is being treated AFTER all of the critical cases have been tended to, that is simply untrue. If that patient with the cold wasn't there, that doctor would just be sitting around cooling his heals till the next critical case came along. The fact that he has time to see the patient with the cold means that he has EXTRA TIME ON HIS HANDS that is not needed to treat critical cases. Which means that treating the patient with the cold is the most efficient use of his time until another more urgent case comes along.
The fact is that excon is simply wrong about the meaning of "efficiency". He doesn't like the fact that patients with colds go to ERs, and would prefer that they go to private doctors. And so would I in reality. However, the fact that he would prefer something else doesn't mean that what is happening now is "inefficient". If efficiency is defined as putting the assets of the hospital where they are needed most urgently within a certain budget, then ERs are much more efficient than doctors offices, EVEN WHEN DEALING WITH THE PATIENT WITH A COLD.
Excon, you would prefer a different definition of "efficiency" of course. Though you never seem to be able to give us a definition. You seem to always fall back on the argument "Well everyone ought to recognize it." You never define what "it" means.
Sorry, that ain't going to fly here. If you can't provide an alternate definition of "efficiency" as it pertains to ERs, you ain't got a leg to stand on.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Let's forget about efficiency for a moment... I think you finished yourself off there...
But, let's take a look at your statement above... It's actually bizarre. It shows the absolute disconnect you have..
The funny thing is, you probably have NO IDEA what I'm talking about either.. You probably think I'm arguing with you about whether he'll be seen and treated quicker by his own doctor.. Or maybe you still think I'm talking about efficiency... Or maybe you think I'm just arguing for the commie plot to take over the health care industry. Who knows what goes on in your little brain?
But, I'm not going to tell you what you're missing... I'm going to make you guess - IF you can, and I'll bet you can't.
excon
EXACTLY!! I think you stated it better than I could have.Quote:
Originally Posted by phlanx
No I don't.Quote:
However, there are certain aspects of business that I don't like when it connects social reform
Don't you think there is a case where business and government can work together to improve the governments effiecently while still leaving a voice for the people to address issues?
The fact is that government and business have an adversarial relationship. It is the job of government to regulate business. It is the job of business to maximize profitability by testing the edges of regulation wherever possible. The two are, by nature, working against each other.
Because that is true, I do not believe that there is a way for government and business to "work together" at anything.
I believe that this is even more true when the government is run by someone who has stated or intimated in the past that they believe businesses to be "the enemy" and must be "broken" in order to bring them in line with the administration's policies, as is the case right now in the Obama administration. In such a situation, collaboration between business and government would be nearly impossible. One of the two MUST lose in such a relationship, and we both know it isn't going to be the government.
But even if that were not the case, government, by it's very nature, has the ability to control the rules of the game. They can change regulations at any time of their choosing so that businesses are either hurt or benefit. That means that the government essentially controls the terms of any such "alliance" and can therefore change the terms of the deal at any time.
It reminds me very much of the Star Wars movies... Remember the scene in The Empire Strikes Back when Han Solo and Leia Organa are captured on the Cloud City of Bespin by Darth Vader because Lando Calrisian betrayed them? Calrisian and Vader had a deal... but Vader changes the terms of the deal. From the Internet Movie Database, here is the exact quote:
Lando: Lord Vader, what about Leia and the Wookiee?Government has the ability to change the terms of any deal at any time, and there is nothing that business would be able to do about it. Therefore, any "collaboration" between business and government of the type that you are proposing would eventually be detrimental to businesses. Even if the government never changed the rules, the FEAR that they might do so and the attempts to keep them from doing so would keep businesses from acting in a "free market" manner, which is detrimental to those businesses and to the economy in general.
Darth Vader: They must never again leave this city.
Lando: [outraged] That was *never* a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!
Darth Vader: Perhaps you think you're being treated unfairly?
Lando: [after a pause] No.
Darth Vader: Good. It would be unfortunate if I had to leave a garrison here.
Lando: [to himself] This deal is getting worse all the time.
So I do not believe that it is possible for businesses and government to collaborate in anything except for very short-term efforts... ie: wartime buildups as in WWII, emergency response to disasters, or similar situations. Except in the most extreme emergencies and only for short periods, I do not believe that government and business can work together toward a "common goal", because I do not believe that the government and business HAVE common goals and the two will eventually end up at odds with each other.
Elliot
I'm not going to guess at anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If you can't state your point clearly, it's probably because you don't have one.
You've gone from arguing "efficiency of ERs", which is a point that YOU brought up, to arguing some other point that I'm supposed to "guess at". You can't even state what your point is anymore. Again, the goal post moves when you can't reach it.
Game, set and match.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Ok, I'll spell it out for you. I KNEW you'd miss it. Uninsured people don't have private doctors.. That's WHY they go to the emergency room.
excon
But YOU are the one arguing that the government should insure them so that they have private doctors... I was arguing from YOUR point of view... and you completely missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
IF the patient was given government insurance, and IF he went to a private doctor, it would NOT be a more efficient use of medical assets and time as you have argued.
THAT is the point I was making... and of course, you missed it because you were too busy nit-picking my argument to get the main point of the argument.
I guess it comes from barely reading what we right-wingers post.
>snicker<.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hold on podner... I also argue for the legalization of marijuana, but it has NOTHING to do with THIS discussion.
So, you're arguing THIS argument from MY point of view?? What kind of response is that?? No, you're not.. Not at all... Not even close.. And, why would you anyway?? I don't know who you think you're trying to fool, but, you forget that it's all written here for everybody to read and draw their own conclusions...
This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...
Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen?? What planet do you normally reside on?
I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.
excon
Here's some fresh government insanity for you, from the same Justice Dept that dropped charges against the New Black Panthers in a case of voter intimidation they had already won:
Obama's Justice Dept wants to rig elections for Democrats and blacks while refusing to prosecute black activists intimidating voters. And you guys complained about Bush politicizing Justice. This is outright political thuggery in Obama's Justice Dept.Quote:
Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.
The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.
The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.
Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."
"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."
Sure I am... I took YOUR assumptions and argued them to their logical conclusion. YOUR assumption is that if the government takes over health care that this hypothetical patient with a cold will be given a private physician of his own and that this will make the system more efficient. I took those assumptions and proved that they are NOT correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You're wrong... deal with it.
Yep. And you STILL haven't been able to post a single thing that makes that statement untrue. Including THIS post.Quote:
This ISN'T about insured people going to the emergency room... It's about YOUR CLAIM that emergency rooms are efficient...
Nope. You still misunderstand. I'm not arguing that the patient will go to the ER is he has government health insurance. I'm agree that he'll go to his doctor. As he should. I'm just arguing that this outcome is NOT the most efficient use of medical assets or time.Quote:
Are you now arguing that after health care reform happens, and people are insured, and have a regular doctor, that they will STILL go to the emergency room for treatment of a cold?? Is THAT what you're suggesting will happen?? What planet do you normally reside on?
If your argument is that government managed health care will be more efficient, you are simply WRONG because doctors offices are NOT more efficient than ERs. THAT is my only point. I am not arguing whether that fact is good or bad. I am not arguing that having a private doctor is better or worse. I am not arguing whether going to an ER is better or worse.
I am simply addressing the issue of EFFICIENCY which has been the basis of your argument in favor of government-run health care. YOU have argued that a government run system would be more efficient than our current system... and you used ER's as your example of the inefficiency of our current system.
You did it right here: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2034869
The exact words you used were:
My entire point is that there is no provider of health care that is more efficient than an ER. And to date you still haven't been able to prove that statement wrong.Quote:
Take ER's for example. I understand you have some experience there... ER's aren't for day to day treatment. They're too damn expensive for that. So, we should REFORM the system, if in no other way, so that ER's go back to being ER's, and people get their day to day treatment in a much more cost effective manner.
So instead, you keep changing the argument... now the discussion is not about efficiency, it's about what people will choose to do if they have coverage. The goal post moves again.
Clearly I do... 'cause you ain't fast enough to keep up.Quote:
I can't argue with you when you do the right wing dance.. You need to settle down, and speak slowly.
Excon
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What ET states about the ER being the most efficient is true. The most efficcient for emrgencies. Most ERs are set up to have imaging [ x-rays, cat scans, mri[s], u/s ] labs, and the staffing that has training and skill to deal with emergencies. Your private physician does not have this logistical set up. It is too expensive and there are CLIAA laws that forbid this. If you are having a heart attack, your doctor will tell you to go to the ER/ hospital, he won't tell you to meet him at the office.
If you go to the ER for a cold, the triage system ensures you will be seen AFTER all the more critical illnesses. If you are smart and learn that going to the ER for a cold takes 6 hours, maybe next time you will go to an urgent treatment center.
This is efficient. THe VA system could not stand on its own because it is inefficient, If you live in southern IL, the closest VA hospital is in Marion, and for specialty care it is ST Louis. Is this the system you desire for the rest of America?
G&P
I've been thinking about this very thing recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What will I do after Obama rationing kicks in and I or my wife start to hurt?
I will call the doctor's office, and when I am told it will be 3 months before they can see me, I will get into my car, or call an ambulance and go to the EMERGENCY ROOM.
I expect a lot of other people will do the same.
What do you think?
Gal, if, after the health care plan kicks in and you or your wife start to hurt, you call your doctor's office and get an appointment just as quickly as in past times, will you apologize?
What is "Obama Rationing"? You do know that he doesn't decide what goes on in your wife's day to day health issues right?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I'm guessing he means doctors will have to ration health care after President Obama gives health care options to all those millions of currently uninsured people who now go to an ER for care. We will have to wait months to see a doctor.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Wondergirl, after the health care plan kicks in, WHEN, not if, rationing begins (as it has in every other country in which nationalized health care ha become law) it will be too late for you to apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Elliot
Hello Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Begins?? BEGINS, you say?? We ration health care right now. If you got the filthy lucre, you get health care. If you got nothing, you die. It ain't no more difficult than that.
Or, in the alternative, if we treat everybody NOW, which is what YOU say we do, there clearly ARE enough doctors to go around. It's just a matter of allocating them a little better, no?
Or, are you unable to keep up with all the crap you post??
excon
No... if you've got nothing, you go to the ER... where you are treated based on need, not based on your ability to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It's more efficient that way, you see.
Sure... if you aren't going to tell the truth about our current system, it's ALWAYS easy.Quote:
It ain't no more difficult than that.
And you think that a government... ANY GOVERNMENT, much less one as wasteful as ours is... is going to be better at allocating those assets than our current system is?Quote:
Or, in the alternative, if we treat everybody NOW, which is what YOU say we do, there clearly ARE enough doctors to go around. It's just a matter of allocating them a little better, no?
The best way to allocate them, as I have said, is via a triage system in an ER... those with the most need get care first. Those with less need get care later. That way we don't have to ration the care... we can manage the supply based on the actual need of the patients.
But if 46 million new people get added to the system, and the government allocates the assets by simply sending people to doctors' offices. Those doctors offices will become overcrowded. Patients will be seen on an as-come-as-served basis, and assets will be allocated based on the least effective methodology possible, resulting in shortages where the assets are most needed.
I'm keeping up just fine. You? Not so much.Quote:
Or, are you unable to keep up with all the crap you post??
Excon
Elliot
Then who are all these people here: Medical Conditions & Diseases - Ask Me Help DeskQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
They should all go to the ER?
They are all people seeking medical advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
They ought to be asking their doctors for medical advice instead of relying on people claiming to be experts on an internet website.
But I'll bet you that most of them have a private doctor to go to.
If they don't, and/or if their condition seems emergent, then yes, they ought to go to the ER.
Do you think that someone should instead have to wait 3-6 weeks under government-run health care to see his GP, followed by another 6-week wait to see his specialist to find out why he has swelling in the right side of his penis?
Yeah, you probably do.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Let's examine that, shall we? On the one hand, you say we cover EVERYBODY. On the other hand, you talk about 46 million NEW people being added?? Dude! Where did THEY come from, if we treat EVERYBODY now??
Plus, Mr. Wolverine, if they are NOW going to the emergency room to get treated for their colds, and they ARE getting treated as YOU say, if after they have insurance, and they go to their private doctor, won't that mean that there will be 1,000's and even more 1,000's of emergency room doctors just standing around?? After all, they'll have 46 million LESS people to treat...
Dude!
You really don't listen to yourself, do you?
excon
They are all people seeking medical advice.
They ought to be asking their doctors for medical advice instead of relying on people claiming to be experts on an internet website.
On this we agree.
But I'll bet you that most of them have a private doctor to go to.
I wonder why they are not going to him/her then.
If they don't, and/or if their condition seems emergent, then yes, they ought to go to the ER.
At least with a doctor's appointment you have a time and date to plan for versus the waiting at an ER.
Do you think that someone should instead have to wait 3-6 weeks under government-run health care to see his GP, followed by another 6-week wait to see his specialist to find out why he has swelling in the right side of his penis?
Yeah, you probably do.
It's fun to make up stats uh?
Hello again, folks:
It's simple MATH. If EVERYBODY is being treated NOW, like YOU say, then all we have to do is move a few doctors around and EVERYBODY will STILL be treated.
Or, is my math off?
excon
Your math is off. If cheeseburgers were free then everyone would gorge themselves on free cheeseburgers.
The same is true with medical care. I am more inclined to do a web search and treat a routine stomach ache than go to a doctor and get treated for a fee. I can go to the store and purchase otc's for the sniffles instead of going to the doctor to get perscriptions that do the same thing the otcs do . But if it were free;perhaps the equation changes.
So yes the system would be overwhelmed as demand of free services increases.
Tom,
As a person living in a country with UHC I can tell you that that isn't the case.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 PM. |