On Feb 18, 12:59Â pm, Todd Mitchell
bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Feb 17, 6:04 pm, Chris Jemmett
rogers.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Feb 17, 4:19 pm, Todd Mitchell
bellsouth.net> wrote:>
>>> On Feb 17, 12:26 pm, Chris Jemmett
rogers.com> writes:>
>>>> On Feb 15, 12:32 pm, Todd Mitchell
bellsouth.net> wrote:>
>>>>> On Feb 14, 4:04 pm, Chris Jemmett
rogers.com> writes:>
>>>>>> On Feb 14, 3:46 pm, Todd Mitchell
bellsouth.net> wrote:>
>>>>>>> On Feb 14, 12:07 pm, Mike Smith
acm.DOT.org>
>>>>>>> And btw, since there's presumably no "right to healthcare" in the
>>>>>>> Constitution, where does it say in that document that *you* and the
>>>>>>> *medical industry* have *right* to *profit* off *my health*?>
>>>>>> Not from your health, from your illness...
>
>>>>> Which is precisely why our system is as fucked up as it is. The
>>>>> emphasis is on profit from people's health-related *illnesses*, not on
>>>>> preventing people from getting ill in the first place.
>
>>>> I hadn't intended my remark to be serious but even so, the right to
>>>> profit is not something to be resented.
>
>>> Who said it was "resented"?
>
>>>> I presume you make some money
>>>> doing whatever it is you do when not venting about the rights of
>>>> others to make a profit.
>
>>> I presume you know the difference between wage labor and "profit".
>
>> As I hope you understand what happens to wages if there is no profit.
>
> Or the irrelevancy of profit in the public
The irrelevancy of profit to the public sector? Who and what do you
think is being taxed to fund the public sector.
>and *non-profit* () sectors of the economy.
In what pipe dream do you see the medical profession being a non-
profit endeavour without unlimited infusions of money from the private
sector.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Of course the "emphasis is on profit from people's health-related
>>>> *illnesses*". Most people wait till there is a problem to see a
>>>> doctor.
>
>>> Sure, because the emphasis in the medical industry is on *illness*.
>>> There isn't much incentive for people to engage in "well-visits" with
>>> their doctors since insurance largely ignores, or caps at an absurdly
>>> low number, the total amount it will pick up for such visits.
>>>> Look at the condition of health care in general in countries where not
>>>> enough profit is being made, either by the medical profession or
>>>> enough other sectors to create the required abundance to have tax
>>>> funded health care.
>
>>> And?
>
>> Obtusety, the new obesity.
>> You seemed to be the one who did not like anyone profiting from your
>> illness.
>
> I don't like anyone profiting off of anyone's illness.
But you do like people to look after and treat the sick, they should
just do it for free or for whatever people choose to pay or not.
That's gonna work.
>> The fact is, if no one profits from your illness/heath/
>> medical care then no one will see to it either.
>
> LOL. Why don't you enlighten us as to the relationship between profit
> necessity and healthcare, because I see *zero* correlation between the
> two.
A very simple microcosm: After a year of not paying the various local
garages and service facilities for repair and upkeep of vehicles the
local hospitals have a shrinking ability to provide ambulance service.
Why, because no one is making profit servicing vehicles. Expand the
thought to medical equipment and supplies. How about drugs? It doesn't
end. No profit brings it all to a stand still. If you think things are
bad now, wait till your country's "health" is fully funded by tax
dollars and everything having to do with health care becomes a
government contract for the private sector people providing the
service. Someone will always be seeing profits or things will not
happen, don't kid yourself.
>> Are you thinking that
>> no one profits in the world of tax funded health care?
>
> Do you think they should?
Do you think anyone should get out of bed in the morning?
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>>> Where do you get off, really? Â You
>>>>>>>> think that because you need something from someone, that all of a sudden
>>>>>>>> you own them?
>>>>>>> What, you think because I need a doctor to look at my tonsils that he
>>>>>>> "owns" me? Get real.
>
>>>>>> Re-read and grasp the concept, you've reversed something.
>
>>>>> Why don't you enlighten me about whatever is reversed.
>
>>>> At no point does anyone attempt to say the doctor you need or any
>>>> other doctor "owns" you.
>
>>> "You think that because you need something from someone, that all of a
>>> sudden you own them?" Them ain't my words (and the subject is
>>> doctors).
>
>> I know, these were your words:
>> "What, you think because I need a doctor to look at my tonsils that he
>> "owns" me?"
>
>>>> You seem to be responding to Mikes comment
>>>> about thinking you own the doctor you need, as in resenting his right
>>>> to make a profit.
>
>>> The only person who seems to think I'm "resentful" of anything is you.
>
>> If it isn't resentment, how would you characterize your attitude to
>> those nasty, profiteering corporations.
>
> Insightful.
If that were the case you would recognize the need for profit.
>
>>> Of course doctors have a right to a wage for their services.
>
>> How magnanimous of you...
>
>>> What there doesn't seem to be a "right" to is large corporations making
>>> *profits* off the backs of the sick.
>
>> "Profits off the backs of the sick" is a meaningless, if inflammatory
>> bit of rhetoric. You may as well howl about the evil car companies
>> making *profits* off the back of those that need transportation.
>
> Yeah, because driving from point A to point B is *so* much like your
> health and healthcare.
It is if you need to get from A to B in order to feed your family.
>
>>>> That logic seems to indicate that you think he
>>>> should not make a profit and that you should be able to dictate what
>>>> his earnings should be, you know, as if you *owned* him/her.
>>> No, that "logic" suggests nothing of the sort.
>
>> Then please enlighten me as to what, if any logic you might be
>> suggesting other than the apparent wish for money (not profit, mind
>> you) to materialize in order to pay doctors the money you so
>> graciously don't object to them getting.
> Fee for service, market competitions, eliminate middlemen (insurance),
> professional compensatory wages (as one chooses, say, a lawyer or an
> accountant), customer (patient) oriented pricing.
Are you thinking that having state run medical care will eliminate the
middle man?
Think in terms of, oh say, the Bush administration as the new
middleman in the matter of your heath care because that is what you
would have had for the last 7 years.
>
>> After we get that all sorted out, which we probably won't, we can get
>> into why a doctor who starts his own practice in order to provide the
>> best service he can need not be told by his patients what an
>> acceptable "labour wage" would be for him.
> My wife's grandfather, what we would call a "country doctor" in these
> parts of the south, did precisely that for more than 50 years. He took
> care of the sick and was paid by his patients whatever they could
> afford to pay him.
So he was free to charge what he thought was right by mutual agreement
with his patients. For his kind of operation that is great. However I
am sure that he worked with others and referred patients to other
physicians or specialists for whom such an arrangement would not be
practical.
> For hundreds of years in medicine, that's exactly how it worked:
> patients were the ones who determined the "acceptability" of their
> doctor's "labour wage" through basic fee-for-service economics.
For hundreds of years there were no multi million dollar machines
keeping people alive who would otherwise die, either. There were no
life saving procedures that carried with them huge expenses and the
need for constant re training as techniques and methods developed. For
hundreds of years people routinely died because there was no doctor
around at the time he was needed.
> As it is today, a doctor's wage is determined by insurance companies
> and medical corporations. Y'know, those entities who (inflammatory
> alert:) *profit* off the backs of the sick.
I hope you don't think the government, state or fed, will be a better
middle man than what you have.
Ultimately, we know heath care can be improved but you have a system
that is working at least as well and arguably better than other state
run systems.
My own experience with the Canadian system was very good. Every aspect
of it was as good as it could have been... well, except for that
initial wait and I suppose I could have started rolling around and
moaning and got moved along quicker but once I was in, all my
questions about where my tax dollars were going were answered very
satisfactorily.
WARNING: The problem is that the system is an absolute bottomless pit.
Funds are collected in the form of out of control taxes and the
mechanism of cuts in service as a precursor to a tax increase has long
been established. If you can avoid that down your way, you might even
come up with a model the rest of us can learn from.
