Is health care a right

Is health care a right

Arrow4
  • byuthomas said... (original post)

    On point one: Why should crappy doctors get protection from legitimate lawsuits? Part of our system is based on the idea that if cause a harm, you are responsible for it. Why do doctors (and in reality, malpractice insurers) get a pass. Let them get insurance. Let appellate courts keep verdict amounts reasonable. But why shield a profession from the consequences of their decisions?

    On point two: If you reduce the patent protection to three years, then you are going to have less research and development. It is simply not worth the investment. I think you have to reward a company that develops an innovative drug. They go through hundreds of drug development projects and very few actually make it to market. The ability to reap large profits from the "winners" is what makes America the most innovative nation in the world in the medical field. I agree wholeheartedly about reducing the FDA testing process. It is absurd and is an embarrassment compared to other developed countries.

    RE: Point two, the bigger issue isn't the time it takes to test a drug via the FDA. The bigger issue is that genomic research has outstripped the FDAs ability to test and certify a drug. Their process is wholly reliant upon large scale samples over a period of years, whereas we're (quickly) approaching an age where you and I , diagnosed with the exact same thing, might get two entirely different , highly personalized treatments (drugs or otherwise) because our DNA is different.

    A few posters aside, sounds like we've got a crew of reasonable people with enough relevant experience to huddle on this and go to Washington to demand change! ;-)

    Last point: if we agree that costs are untenable (which I believe they are.....look at healthcare spending as a % of GDP and household income over the last 25 years. Staggering!), we have to all concede that some of the things we like about our current healthcare system will have to be sacrificed in order to reduce costs. This especially includes medical innovation/research. It would really, really help if the federal government hadn't decided 20 years ago that scientists were boogeymen and stopped funding scientific research at a reasonable level. That's an area the free market has failed to deliver on for the entire course of recorded history. When profits are the principle motivation, you can't play the long game. The government can afford to be patient and place a lot of (expensive) bets because they're not under the same pressures to produce quarterly earnings. The internet would not have happened were it not for the federal gov't funding research.

  • BigDrewUGA said... (original post)

    I think that your three points have merit, but they go against the free market in some cases. Sadly, it's all cyclical and regulation driven, which harms ability to adapt quickly. I've been very close to the Life Sciences industry for years now and new regulations, whether track and trace (yes, the pharma companies asked for this but in the DSCSA more regulations were squeezed into the document in order to appease both sides of the aisle) or new FDA procedures are barrier to entry and are causing significantl inflation.

    To create better competition, the regulations need to be re-evaluated.

    Such as your point 1. The current process is driven by legal ramifications in many cases. CYA is a large part of any business of scale, and the consumer pays for it. I am hopeful that Tort Reform becomes an issue in Washington again at some point, but many of our elected leaders are lawyers who specialized in Tort law.

    Point 2: Make it easier to get a drug to market. Think about the amount of money it takes to research and validate a drug, and then the company has to sit on that for an obscene amount of time in hopes that the FDA releases it. I am a fan of reducing the generics timeline to three years. Great idea.

    Point 3: I'm not up for hospitals being transparent if they are privately run. That's part of the system that should drive healthy competition and medicare/medicade are forms of insurance. However, I would like to see reform on hospital boards to restrict who can make decisions. In the bigger networks, they are all so connected and ripe with incestuous leadership that cares simply about margin instead of cutting cost to maintain, not to mention their influence over government agencies. Supplies and the distribution network for many large IDNs are an absolute mess. There was one IDN in Florida that i was able to do some work with that had 45 different types of gloves on hand to appease the entire hospital staff. It's not a huge spend, but that goes for nearly every product in a hospital.

    We should all use this board more often. IT's good for the off-season!!

    RE: Point 1, avoidance of risk isn't the primary motivator. For example, many of the big insurers operate as essentially TPA for self-insured organizations. The way I get pre-authorization, determine deductible and co-pay, etc, is wildly different for each individual plan within a carrier and very different across carriers. There is a multi-billion dollar HCIT business set up exclusively to navigate this mess. I think a whole lot of standardization of plan design + form/format would reduce that cost exponentially, but the insurers have zero incentive to do so. As a case-in-point, Medicare's administrative costs as a percentage of overall costs is less than half of what a traditional carrier's is because they've standardized a lot of their plan and associated forms. Since they're paying for the care, they have an incentive to reduce administrative costs. A carrier does not. They pass that cost on to the hospital , the employer and the patient.

    RE: Point 3, I'm not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

  • alexevans21 said... (original post)

    Not sure I’m getting what you’re asking between the who/how.

    It's really damn simple? Do I as a taxpayer pay for your health care as well as me paying for mine! Do you want to add 3 Trillions dollars of debt to the national debt per year. It's already over 20 Trillion Dollars and growing with no end in sight. This level of spending will cause us to become a 3rd world country at some point. It can't be sustained.

    This post was edited by poleman 1 year ago

  • Healthcare is NOT A RIGHT. You can not have a right that requires others 1. Provide their service too you, or 2 others have to pay it for you. To believe either so means you endorse slavery.

  • TimothySwift said... Because you won't be paying for my healthcare and your healthcare. Everyone will be paying for everyone's healthcare. It's not like you'll ...

    Wrong, most won't be paying at all. Half the Country right now doesn't pay taxes. And there is not enough tax money you can collect to pay for these stupid ideas

  • TimothySwift said... You raise taxes and cut spending.

    Raising taxes cuts revenue

  • alexevans21 said... Working in it, it is evident that change is needed. I'm not sure what exactly the answer is, but I have a few ideas.1) Big Pharma needs to go2) Medicare/Me...

    Number on is one of the most ignorant things I've read in sometime. Do you even know what "Big Pharma" does? THEY PROVIDE LIFE SAVING drugs that help us live longer and better lives, they spend TRILLIONS on R&D to bring these drugs to market, then the FDA makes it as hard as possible to do so. You wonder why drugs are cheaper in other Countries? There you go, GOVERNMENT. You start destroying these companies and the R&D is reduced drastically and advances in HC comes to a halt. Just completely moronic

  • alexevans21 said... It is not. Far from it actually (statistically speaking). And that's coming from someone who works in it.

    Why do people from all over the world come here for care?

  • byuthomas said... Here is the problem, and I don't see a realistic way out. There are three groups: (1) those that cover healthcare costs through private insurance; (2) those ...

    Absolutely nuts. It's not medicare for all, its medicaid for all, and if you think you're paying a lot now, it would take a ***** load more than 5% to get HC, that's just a pipe dream. I don't understand anyone who would want the fcking government to run his HC? WTF ? Some goofy bureaucrat in a dead in job making decisions as to what treatment you can get? No thank you, all over the world all you hear about is how wonderful these gov provided HC plans are, its BS, things we take for granted people in Canada, England, Denmark etc wait months and months for, all of them are gradually changing to their private systems that they all currently have.

    How'd Obama care work out? It raised your premiums and deductibles. Its what happens anytime Gov is involved, what are the two biggest complaints today? Healthcare and Education, Who has the biggest say in either? GOVERNMENT. Then you add the tens of millions of ILLEGALS that the very people promoting this silly BS advocate bring in and giving them HC also, it's just no sustainable. The only way to bring down cost is to completely get Government out of the HC business, sell insurance across state lines and allow Doctors to offer their services for cash. Only the Free market will work, everything is is just exasperating the problems

  • If it requires someone to work for you or provide something to you it is not a right.

  • Is being happy a right or privilege?

    There is your answer.

  • poleman said... (original post) You earned it and I don't mind. It's other people I'm talking about! You didn't answer one of my questions? How do we pay the 3...

    You should focus on many other things than wing nut proposals if you’re truly concerned about spending. This administration has increased the federal deficit via spending and far greater than any before them.

  • alexevans21 said... (original post)There’s no need to make this a partisanship issue. When a vial of long-acting insulin costs $2 in Germany, and $600 here for the same %*#^%# via...

    We need to change our patent laws. As long as the drug companies make minor modifications to a drug, such as insulin, they can get a new patent for it and prevent others from make it on the generic market. It's not capitalistic at all; it is rent-seeking behavior that politicians from both parties allow to happen.

  • ETownDawg89 said... (original post)I personally don’t see it as a right, but the system here in the USA is broken. The answer is not govt healthcare though

    The answer is not capitalistic healthcare either. That’s why costs are thru the fuxking Gd roof. Greed, same as in the gov. Governments in other countries that have Medicare for all, to where you can be really sick, but not from said country, and you pay an 80 dollar out of pocket for tests, meds, etc. We can do so much better in the “greatest country ever”.

  • iHatejorts said... (original post)The answer is not capitalistic healthcare either. That’s why costs are thru the fuxking Gd roof. Greed, same as in the gov. Governments in other ...

    Medicare for all doesn’t work either. Ask anyone with it over there and you won’t get the warm and fuzzies. Giving the govt the power to say what you can and can’t have is not in anyone’s best interest.

  • ETownDawg89 said... (original post)Medicare for all doesn’t work either. Ask anyone with it over there and you won’t get the warm and fuzzies. Giving the govt the power to say wha...

    So by that same principle, I assume you support the right to strike down any government proposals that limit abortions or tell a woman what they can and can't do with their bodies, right?

  • Rhpmiller88 said... (original post)So by that same principle, I assume you support the right to strike down any government proposals that limit abortions or tell a woman what they ...

    I do not support abortion if that answers your question. I’ve got 2 kids and I couldn’t imagine life without them. We’ve also been through a miscarriage and the pain from that was very tough as well, so the thought of someone else willingly partaking in that is terrible. Love how it’s always spun as a right to their bodies lol. There’s way too many ways out there to prevent a pregnancy that an abortion should be even be an option

  • iHatejorts said... (original post)The answer is not capitalistic healthcare either. That’s why costs are thru the fuxking Gd roof. Greed, same as in the gov. Governments in other ...

    WTF? The cost is through the roof because of GOVERNMENT, its Government that sets prices in the largest insurance plan in the country, its government that won't let insurance companies sell across state lines, its perceptively because we have taken capitalism out of the system that it cost so much. This is why the voting age needs to be raise. You kid simply don't know what you don't know, you're just a skull full of mush trying to figure it out, let me help you. Government has PRODUCED NOTHING, it helps NO ONE it can only take, it has no money, it has no product, it does nothing to make your life better, you can choose not to do business with some company you don't like, try not doing business with the Government, they will shoot you

  • If anyone is looking for an alternative healthcare solution. I sell Medi-Share. It’s a great program and will greatly reduce your monthly spend. Send me a PM and I’d be happy to provide more information

  • jbarke11 said... (original post)If anyone is looking for an alternative healthcare solution. I sell Medi-Share. It’s a great program and will greatly reduce your monthly spend. Se...

    I’ve always wondered about that, but never did really look into it. How is the cost per month compared to traditional health care plans?

  • Rolodawg said... (original post)WTF? The cost is through the roof because of GOVERNMENT, its Government that sets prices in the largest insurance plan in the country, its governme...

    The internet upon which you’re posting this drivel was developed by the government. But carry on, buffoon.

  • scrambledawg said... (original post)The internet upon which you’re posting this drivel was developed by the government. But carry on, buffoon.

    WTF does that have to do with healthcare , Tide pod? Tell me, are you forced to buy healthcare or insurance? Oh wait, that's right, Obama (aka POSotus) forced you to do that and fined you if you didn't, now Trump has fixed it. Do you think you can opt out of doing business with the Government? No one owes you anything lady.

  • ETownDawg89 said... (original post)Medicare for all doesn’t work either. Ask anyone with it over there and you won’t get the warm and fuzzies. Giving the govt the power to say wha...

    Uh...that's exactly what it is. Do you think you should have the right to do what you please with your own body? If so, then shouldn't women have that exact same right?

    You're arguing that government shouldn't have a right to tell people what to do or what they can and can't have, but then say it's totally ok when it comes to abortion. Furthermore, you're saying it's never ok. How about if a woman is raped? Should she be forced to have a child? What about a defective condom or birth control device? Should that person be forced to have a child, even if that baby is unable to be supported emotionally or financially by the parents?

    The ironic thing is that the people who are so against abortion are usually the ones who are so against government social programs too. So it goes like this: "Force them to have the baby"....(baby is turned over to social services)...."cut funding for social programs because that's for lazy people and not where I want my money going"....(child is abused or sits in foster homes for years and years)...."I'm 100% pro-life of all lives."

    I am NOT saying that the above scenario is you, but it's a bit **** backwards and hypocritical when someone argues for one thing, but then completely contradicts it moments later.

  • Rhpmiller88 said... (original post)Uh...that's exactly what it is. Do you think you should have the right to do what you please with your own body? If so, then shouldn't ...

    Abortion should be controlled because it is murder. It has morning to do with healthcare and nothing to do with choosing how to control my body....

    The instances you use to make your point isn’t a fair argument. Rape is a terrible atrocity, but it’s just a mere fraction of the total number of abortions performed. If women want a choice, choose to be abstinent, choose to plan better, do accidents happen? Sure. Should a child pay for the decisions of their parents? No.

  • ETownDawg89 said... (original post)Abortion should be controlled because it is murder. It has morning to do with healthcare and nothing to do with choosing how to control my body....

    Did you just hear yourself? "IF women want a choice...".


    So two things: 1) Women shouldn't get to have that choice on what to do with their body? Does the man have to carry the baby and go through hell for 9 months? Nah. 2) Is it ok if the government starts telling you what to do with your body, so that you no longer have a choice for your life?

    Regardless of your opinion on abortion or not, it's the principle that everyone should have the right to choose how to live their lives and do what they please with their own bodies.