205 replies to this topic

[Recliner Pilot]

Didn't say her knowledge is 'superior'. She knows more about the pharma company's data, some of which may be useful, but a lot of which is meaningless propaganda. The bias comes from her impetus to sell the drugs she markets. When one has only a limited time to educate oneself, reading the trial data is more effective than chatting with a hot chick with free pens, or attending a presentation at a nice restaurant.

You said you are "familiar" with hundreds of drugs. She has a few she knows inside and out, what they do, what the side affects are, and how the efficacy and side affects compare to the other drugs in that particular class. Like I said, her favorite calls are when she gets to hand people like you your ass.

The fact you consider it "chatting with a hot chick" exposes you as one of those know-it-alls who she loves to school.

[penultimatestraw]

1) You want single payer. That's a non starter for me. You basically want to hand the government everyone's health records as well. I'm not comfortable with that. The less they know about me the better. Not to mention that they have an abysmal record of protecting privacy.

How does the rest of the world do it?

2) I'm good with Tort reform. However, if you look at places where it's been implemented (Texas is one IIRC) it hasn't been the cost reducer many would have you believe.

I acknowledge this in an earlier post. I think the laws are necessary, as well as a lot of time to change ingrained defensive medicine habits.

3) Lower doctor salaries? Are you F'ing kidding me? We've already got a shortage which is only going to get worse with more people being covered. And you want to tell prospective doctors they're going to make less? Do you know how long and how much it costs to become a doctor?

Again, look at the rest of the world. I'm not saying lower all, maybe lower subspecialists who are paid far more than primary care, and use some (not all) of that $ to increase primary care pay (where the shortages are most severe). Oh yeah, I have a vague idea how much it costs to become a doctor

4) You want to cut the military by 90%. Yeah, that's reasonable.

I'll ask the same question I asked Drobeski. What % of our military spending is critical? Can we compromise at a 50% reduction so we still outspend China?

5) Your self admitted biggest recommendation is to promote a healthy lifestyle. Yeah, because people don't know that if they're fat it's bad for them now. IOW, this isn't going to help. People live the way they want to live. The evolution of this would be that if people don't meet certain lifestyle/fitness criteria they pay more for health care, as many private companies require now. I'm not on board with that.

I also like that idea, but I'd argue sin taxes are a part of it. And no, many people don't understand what a healthy weight is, or cost effective food choices.

6) I don't believe in sin taxes. Taxes were implemented to pay for our government, which is already many times larger than our forefathers ever envisioned. They shouldn't be used to adjust behavior.

In many cases, people don't adjust behavior unless there is financial incentive to do so. Funnel the tax directly to the healthcare industry, which by necessity includes government assistance IMO.

In any case I don't think your plan would be effective. Certain aspects of it have use, such as tort reform, and certain other concepts may have some value if modified somewhat. Bot as an overall plan I don't think it would be effective.

That better constructive criticism?

Better response. What about the cuts to the middlemen and end of life care? I think those are the biggest $ savers I mentioned.

[penultimatestraw]

You said you are "familiar" with hundreds of drugs. She has a few she knows inside and out, what they do, what the side affects are, and how the efficacy and side affects compare to the other drugs in that particular class. Like I said, her favorite calls are when she gets to hand people like you your ass.

The fact you consider it "chatting with a hot chick" exposes you as one of those know-it-alls who she loves to school.

Your wife has taught me a lot , but let's stay on topic.

And I dated a pharm rep for a while, so I know all about their inferiority complex.

I am not saying the reps have no useful information, just that I can get that info unfiltered and unadulterated from other sources.

[Recliner Pilot]

Your wife has taught me a lot , but let's stay on topic.

And I dated a pharm rep for a while, so I know all about their inferiority complex.

I am not saying the reps have no useful information, just that I can get that info unfiltered and unadulterated from other sources.

Once again with the superiority complex. Congrats.

I guarantee she would destroy you on knowledge of the classes of drugs she promotes. No question in my mind, you are exactly like so many of the asshats she slams.

[MDC]

Once again with the superiority complex. Congrats.

I guarantee she would destroy you on knowledge of the classes of drugs she promotes. No question in my mind, you are exactly like so many of the asshats she slams.

From what I heard it's the asshats who are slamming your wife.

[Strike]

Better response. What about the cuts to the middlemen and end of life care? I think those are the biggest $ savers I mentioned.

1) The rest of the world is irrelevant to me. There's a reason the USA is the best country in the world. It's not because we follow the path of the rest of the world. Plus, the rest of the world is rapidly heading towards more privatization of their health care systems due to the inability to pay for everyone's health care from the public coffers and still be solvent.

2) I'm fine with a reduction in military spending. It doesn't have to go to health care though. We're a few trillion in debt. Let's cut military spending and use that to pay down our debt.

3) End of life care is a worthy discussion. A disproportionate amount of our health care spending goes towards that. In fact, if we could get that under control we could probably make a significant dent in to the cost problem of health care. Unfortunately, when it's brought up all you hear are "death panels." And there is some validity to that as well. We need to find a proper balance.

[penultimatestraw]

Like I said, her favorite calls are when she gets to hand people like you your ass.

The fact you consider it "chatting with a hot chick" exposes you as one of those know-it-alls who she loves to school.

I guarantee she would destroy you on knowledge of the classes of drugs she promotes. No question in my mind, you are exactly like so many of the asshats she slams.

Your wife sounds pretty tough, yet knowledgeable. What is her body fat %?

[Recliner Pilot]

Your wife sounds pretty tough, yet knowledgeable. What is her body fat %?

She can be tough because she is very knowledgeable.

Body fat%? Somewhere between Immensamind and what is between Newbie's ears.

[penultimatestraw]

1) The rest of the world is irrelevant to me. There's a reason the USA is the best country in the world. It's not because we follow the path of the rest of the world. Plus, the rest of the world is rapidly heading towards more privatization of their health care systems due to the inability to pay for everyone's health care from the public coffers and still be solvent.

2) I'm fine with a reduction in military spending. It doesn't have to go to health care though. We're a few trillion in debt. Let's cut military spending and use that to pay down our debt.

3) End of life care is a worthy discussion. A disproportionate amount of our health care spending goes towards that. In fact, if we could get that under control we could probably make a significant dent in to the cost problem of health care. Unfortunately, when it's brought up all you hear are "death panels." And there is some validity to that as well. We need to find a proper balance.

#1 is real arrogance. Why can't we learn from what works elsewhere? Do you have a link supporting the rapid privatization of healthcare worldwide? The bottom line is, healthcare is expensive, and other places can provide it to their populace for a much lower % of GDP. Our system isn't working, and it is getting worse over time.

Agreed we can cut military spending to pay off debt, but healthcare is our greatest area of need IMO.

The death panel crap is nonsense, revealing ignorance and fear about the inevitability of death. We need to grow up so we can allow people to die with dignity.

[jerryskids]

Your wife sounds pretty tough, yet knowledgeable. What is her body fat %?

[gocolts]

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.


"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

I seem to remember a few of these democratically elected congressmen being appointed too. Hell, one jackass went to jail for trying to sell a seat.

[Strike]

#1 is real arrogance. Why can't we learn from what works elsewhere? Do you have a link supporting the rapid privatization of healthcare worldwide? The bottom line is, healthcare is expensive, and other places can provide it to their populace for a much lower % of GDP. Our system isn't working, and it is getting worse over time.

Eh, never mind. You want single payer, which is a non starter for me and something I don't think will be passed in the time frame before our health care system implodes. So, if you can't even acknowledge that it's a non starter what's the point in having this discussion?

Agreed we can cut military spending to pay off debt, but healthcare is our greatest area of need IMO.

Define "our". It's certainly not mine, and I pay for my own health insurance.

[penultimatestraw]

Eh, never mind. You want single payer, which is a non starter for me and something I don't think will be passed in the time frame before our health care system implodes. So, if you can't even acknowledge that it's a non starter what's the point in having this discussion?




Define "our". It's certainly not mine, and I pay for my own health insurance.

Oh I see, you say it is a non-starter so it cannot be part of the conversation. I didn't say single payor BTW. But government-sponsored insurance into which we all contribute will likely be a part of any long term solution, as it is in just about every other country with better healthcare than ours. Oh yeah, where was that link about the rapid privatization of healthcare worldwide?

Our=All members of society, including those without the means to pay for our current system. Can you turn your back on suffering among those less privileged? That attitude is a non-starter for me.

[penultimatestraw]

You said you are "familiar" with hundreds of drugs. She has a few she knows inside and out, what they do, what the side affects are, and how the efficacy and side affects compare to the other drugs in that particular class. Like I said, her favorite calls are when she gets to hand people like you your ass.

The fact you consider it "chatting with a hot chick" exposes you as one of those know-it-alls who she loves to school.

Apparently there are more arrogant know-it-alls over time: My link

Doctors increasingly close doors to drug reps, while pharma cuts ranks

By KEVIN B. O'REILLY, amednews staff. Posted March 23, 2009.

The relationship between doctors and drug reps may never be the same again.

Pharmaceutical companies -- battered by a sluggish drug pipeline, the looming loss of blockbuster patented drugs, an economy in recession and scrutiny of their relationships with physicians -- are re-examining the value of sending drug reps into doctors' offices. Detailers are struggling to grab a shrinking slice of physicians' valuable time and attention while adjusting to new drug industry rules banning freebies such as pens and notepads.

At its peak in 2007, the American pharmaceutical industry fielded 102,000 sales reps, said Chris Wright, managing principal for the consulting firm ZS Associates' U.S. Pharmaceuticals Practice. Drugmakers have slashed the number to 92,000 since then, and ZS projects the number will fall to 75,000 by 2012 at the latest, saving the industry $3.6 billion.

Pharma's return on investment in its sales force has plummeted. For every 100 reps who visit a practice, 37 place their products in the office's sample cabinet, and only 20 speak to a physician in person, said the New York-based consulting group TNS Healthcare. Profit per drug rep visit fell 23% from 2004 to 2005, said a February PricewaterhouseCoopers report on pharma's future.

"The old sales model is broken now, and who knows how it will look in the future," said Peter H. Nalen, president of Compass Healthcare Communications, an online drug marketer in Princeton, N.J. "What's happening is that pharmaceutical companies are realizing there are other ways to reach the doctor instead of banging on the door of the doctor who just doesn't want to talk to you."

1 in 4 doctors works in a practice that refuses to see drug reps.
...

Another article which looks at physician/pharm rep interaction - it's an educational summary that lists the primary medical literature on this topic (PDF): My link

Pharmaceutical Representatives: An Evidence-Based Review with Suggested Guidelines for Clerkships

In recent years, the influx of drug reps into physician offices and hospitals has attracted the attention of both medical journals and the lay press. Recently the British Medical Journal dedicated an entire issue to this topic.1 Newspapers ranging from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal have also covered this issue, often in the wake of practices that ranged from questionable to bordering on bribery. Much published research has also been conducted in this area, nearly all of it concluding that the interactions between drug reps and physicians are detrimental to doctors and their patients. Below is a brief review of the evidence:

Bias and Influence

It can hardly come as a surprise that drug reps are biased toward their own products. When they make factually inaccurate statements, they always favor their products.2 Many doctors claim to be able to sort out the bias, but is that actually true? Research indicates that prescribing habits of physicians exposed to pharmaceutical representatives do not follow the therapeutic guidelines established by expert panels.3,4 Further, while resident doctors claim to be immune themselves, they also believe that the other physicians around them are influenced.5 A prospective study tracking the prescribing habits of physicians graphically showed how interactions with drug companies do alter prescribing patterns.6 Reducing contact with drug representatives during residency training has a lasting impact on how the physicians view information provided by pharmaceutical companies.7

Medicine is striving to become evidence-based. While pharmaceutical representatives do often provide published literature, their talks and trinkets appear to have the power to undo the teaching provided by the senior physicians in the educational setting.

Commercialization

Many doctors claim that they don’t even know what trade name is on their pen. However, patients do notice. Patients further believe that doctors are influenced by the
drug company trinkets and trips.8 Regardless of whether the physician is actually influenced, the perception of drug company interference damages the doctor-patient relationship. In an era when building rapport with patients is made more difficult by time constraints, why make it even harder by giving patients the impression that the physician has an established relationship with a drug company?

Gifts

Gifts, no matter how small, produce a sense of reciprocity in the recipient.9 This is why pharmaceutical companies provide pens, notepads, name badge holders, etc. Social science has documented the way that gift recipients feel impelled to do something in return for the giver. However, this creates a conflict of interest: the desire to cure the patient versus the subconscious need to repay the drug company’s generosity. While these two goals can be congruent, they may not be.

Entitlement is also an issue: students and resident physicians feel entitled to a good lunch and cool gadgets from the drug companies. Commentators have pointedly observed the feeding-frenzy of physicians at conferences wherein the attendees line up at tables to collect gizmos and gadgets.10 Is that professional behavior?

Inefficient Use of Health Care Dollars

According to the drug manufacturing industry, each successful drug costs $897 million to develop.11 Drug companies spend $16 billion on promotions to physicians and patients each year – $7.2 billion of which is the cost of drug samples. At a glance, doesn’t that mean that drug companies fail to develop 10 to 20 new drugs each year because they are spending that money to promote the current drugs instead? Is that a good use of health care dollars?

The drug companies have recently been engaged in a “rep race” – each company, fearful of losing market share, has hired more drug representatives in order to contact more physicians. As a result, there are now 90,000 pharmaceutical representatives in the country. However, the flooding of physicians’ offices has resulted in fewer successful encounters: a representative actually meets with a physician only once in five attempts.12 Reliance on drug representatives has become a high-cost, low-yield method of disseminating information about pharmaceuticals.

[Recliner Pilot]

Apparently there are more arrogant know-it-alls over time:

Yes. More and more of you are only into the Almighty dollar, and don't care to waste time being educated on new drugs.

Seriously though, more Drs around here are entering into agreements with the hospital systems to avoid having to keep up with the massive amount of paperwork (surely to skyrocket under Obamacare). The hospital systems are responsible for most of the limits being put on reps.

ETA: Nothing is handed out to Drs anymore, not even pens/pads. At least not by the company my wife works for. I think that is current Pharma guidelines.

[Mungwater]

Drug reps are a dying breed, most are just referred to as "meals in heels".

Medical devices is still a good place to be

[DankNuggs]

ETA: Nothing is handed out to Drs anymore, not even pens/pads. At least not by the company my wife works for. I think that is current Pharma guidelines.

They changed the rules to eliminate pretty much everything... seems like it was the wild west for a long time in giving these docs lavish vegas trips, and all sorts of incentivizing to get them to prescribe more of whatever drug they were peddling...

Thats what helped sour me on the HC industry, when i realized the drugs i was being prescribed were a result of doctors being pressured by strawberry daiquiris rather than evaluating the best medication for a particular need... Sketchy stuff..

[jerryskids]

Drug reps are a dying breed, most are just referred to as "meals in heels".

Medical devices is still a good place to be

I tried for a while to get into medical devices; that would be a natural progression for my old industry, and with a diabetic daughter I have a lot of personal interest in the area. It's a tough nut to crack though. Basically you need medical device experience to get a medical device job.

[Mungwater]

I tried for a while to get into medical devices; that would be a natural progression for my old industry, and with a diabetic daughter I have a lot of personal interest in the area. It's a tough nut to crack though. Basically you need medical device experience to get a medical device job.

I had interviews set up with Boston Scientific for a device job, they said that it was crazy like seven rounds of interviews. With the amount of cash that was possible, I can see their justification.

Unfortunately I got deployed and I'm still at the same job :sad:

[Strike]

Oh I see, you say it is a non-starter so it cannot be part of the conversation. I didn't say single payor BTW. But government-sponsored insurance into which we all contribute will likely be a part of any long term solution, as it is in just about every other country with better healthcare than ours. Oh yeah, where was that link about the rapid privatization of healthcare worldwide?

Single payer is single payer. Just because you don't call it that doesn't mean it isn't what the definition of the term is. And no one has better health care than we do. Way to repeat the talking point though.

Our=All members of society, including those without the means to pay for our current system. Can you turn your back on suffering among those less privileged? That attitude is a non-starter for me.

Ok. There are a lot of people who are homeless too. Should we buy them all a house? That's probably a bigger need than their health care.

[Recliner Pilot]

Even CNN is calling the White-African-American POTUS out for his rookie move blasting the Supreme Court.

(CNN) -- In what must be the most extraordinary statement of his presidency, Barack Obama on Monday blasted the possibility that the United States Supreme Court might overturn the Affordable Care Act. Obama said the court would take an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" if it overturns the law, because it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Setting aside the point that the ACA did not pass with an overwhelming majority, but by a party-line vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House, and without the support of a single member of the Republican Party, the most astonishing thing about Obama's diatribe was the fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional tradition it revealed.

Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.

This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.

Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.


This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a measure regarded as fundamental by those who argued for the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791, provides that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people thereof.

As the Supreme Court told us in the Lopez (1995) and Morrison (2000) cases, this means that there must be some limits on the powers of the federal government, and it also means that the basic law-making power, the police power, must reside in the governments closest to the people themselves, the state and local governments.

This is our tradition, and the ACA's individual mandate is a fundamental break with that tradition. If, as it should, the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional, it will be reaffirming our traditions, and not usurping them. The president, a former constitutional law teacher, should be ashamed of himself.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/?hpt=hp_bn4

[penultimatestraw]

Yes. More and more of you are only into the Almighty dollar, and don't care to waste time being educated on new drugs.

Seriously though, more Drs around here are entering into agreements with the hospital systems to avoid having to keep up with the massive amount of paperwork (surely to skyrocket under Obamacare). The hospital systems are responsible for most of the limits being put on reps.

ETA: Nothing is handed out to Drs anymore, not even pens/pads. At least not by the company my wife works for. I think that is current Pharma guidelines.

I don't fault those who interact with reps, but wanted to point out there are plenty of reasons to do so beyond arrogance. The down-side of the interaction outweighs the potential good IMO - it doesn't take long top read the medical letter and other resources detailing pertinent drug info.

I do like looking at drug reps, however.

[penultimatestraw]

They changed the rules to eliminate pretty much everything... seems like it was the wild west for a long time in giving these docs lavish vegas trips, and all sorts of incentivizing to get them to prescribe more of whatever drug they were peddling...

Thats what helped sour me on the HC industry, when i realized the drugs i was being prescribed were a result of doctors being pressured by strawberry daiquiris rather than evaluating the best medication for a particular need... Sketchy stuff..

Not all docs are like this - some are arrogant!

[penultimatestraw]

Single payer is single payer. Just because you don't call it that doesn't mean it isn't what the definition of the term is. And no one has better health care than we do. Way to repeat the talking point though.

Ok. There are a lot of people who are homeless too. Should we buy them all a house? That's probably a bigger need than their health care.

I never said single payer; I am OK with supplemental private insurance. I am advocating universal healthcare, with a portion government-sponsored. If you fail to understand the difference I cannot help you.

And there are plenty of systems objectively better than ours, though our system certainly has its merits. We need less arrogant patriotism and more willingness to combine the good features of healthcare around the world. I've linked this before, but if you really want to understand where our system objectively ranks, I suggest you read this: My link

Also still waiting for the link showing the rapid privatization of healthcare worldwide…

There are homeless shelters for housing those without homes. And healthcare is far more important than owning a home.

[Strike]

I never said single payer; I am OK with supplemental private insurance. I am advocating universal healthcare, with a portion government-sponsored. If you fail to understand the difference I cannot help you.

And there are plenty of systems objectively better than ours, though our system certainly has its merits. We need less arrogant patriotism and more willingness to combine the good features of healthcare around the world. I've linked this before, but if you really want to understand where our system objectively ranks, I suggest you read this: My link

Also still waiting for the link showing the rapid privatization of healthcare worldwide…

There are homeless shelters for housing those without homes. And healthcare is far more important than owning a home.

Single payer is still single payer, no matter what you say. Allowing for supplemental insurance doesn't change what single payer is. Many countries with systems considered to be single payer allow for supplemental private insurance, such as Canada. I'm sorry, but I refuse to have a discussion where we can't even agree on certain FACTS. If you can't agree that what you're proposing would fall under the single payer definition then we're done. I have better things to do than argue definitions with someone who doesn't like the negative connotations associated with what he's proposing.

[penultimatestraw]

Single payer is still single payer, no matter what you say. Allowing for supplemental insurance doesn't change what single payer is. Many countries with systems considered to be single payer allow for supplemental private insurance, such as Canada. I'm sorry, but I refuse to have a discussion where we can't even agree on certain FACTS. If you can't agree that what you're proposing would fall under the single payer definition then we're done. I have better things to do than argue definitions with someone who doesn't like the negative connotations associated with what he's proposing.

Then how about you provide a link to back up your earlier assertion about international health care privatization?

Also you insisting something is/isn't correct doesn't necessarily make it so: My link

What is Single Payer?

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer.” In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity—a government run organization—would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs. In the current US system, there are literally tens of thousands of different health care organizations—HMOs, billing agencies, etc. By having so many different payers of health care fees, there is an enormous amount of administrative waste generated in the system. (Just imagine how complex billing must be in a doctor’s office, when each insurance company requires a different form to be completed, has a different billing system, different billing contacts and phone numbers—it’s very confusing.) In a single-payer system, all hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers would bill one entity for their services. This alone reduces administrative waste greatly, and saves money, which can be used to provide care and insurance to those who currently don’t have it.

I am open to private insurers in conjunction with or in addition to government-sponsored coverage, as long as the end result is universal coverage.

But keep living your dogmatic existence!

[Strike]

Then how about you provide a link to back up your earlier assertion about international health care privatization?

Also you insisting something is/isn't correct doesn't necessarily make it so: My link
I am open to private insurers in conjunction with or in addition to government-sponsored coverage, as long as the end result is universal coverage.

But keep living your dogmatic existence!

You're quoting a propoganda page advocating for a single payer system and using their definition as the definition of single payer? ROFLMAO. Let's stick to the established single payer systems and how they work and the generally accepted definition of single payer, um kay? And, as I said, if we can't even agree on that then there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

[penultimatestraw]

You're quoting a propoganda page advocating for a single payer system and using their definition as the definition of single payer? ROFLMAO. Let's stick to the established single payer systems and how they work and the generally accepted definition of single payer, um kay? And, as I said, if we can't even agree on that then there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

At least I can provide links to support my assertions. Is Wikipedia better?

Single-payer health care is medical care funded from a single insurance pool, run by the state.[4] Single-payer is a form of monopsony: a market in which one buyer faces many sellers. Single-payer is not the same as universal health care (it is possible to have either without the other). A single-payer-universal-health-care plan for an entire population can be financed from a pool to which many parties—employees, employers, and the state—have contributed.

Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees, and then pays for all services, through a "single" government (or government-related) source.[5] In wealthy nations, this kind of publicly managed insurance is typically extended to all citizens and legal residents. Examples include the United Kingdom's National Health Service, Australia's Medicare, Canada's Medicare, and Taiwan's National Health Insurance.

Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations (as is the case in Canada) or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel (as is the case in the UK). The term "single-payer" thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care financed by a single public body from a single fund—and does not specify the type of delivery, or for whom doctors work. Although the fund holder is usually the state, some forms of single-payer use a mixed public-private system.

Anyway, you cannot get past that term, got it. Let's talk about universal coverage instead - is this important? If not, what happens when those without it get sick/injured?

[Recliner Pilot]

Jay Carney has put this thing to bed.


He claims since Obama is a "Law Professor" and he was speaking in shorthand, and the entire country is just too damn dumb to know WTF he was actually saying.

What a bunch of arrogant asshats.

[Strike]

At least I can provide links to support my assertions. Is Wikipedia better?
Anyway, you cannot get past that term, got it. Let's talk about universal coverage instead - is this important? If not, what happens when those without it get sick/injured?

First of all, I live how you selectively quote the article. If you look at the Canadian section of the Wikipedia article you'll see

Although many Canadian citizens have supplemental private insurance from their employers, this covers non-medically necessary expenses not covered by Canadian Medicare, and accounts for 12% of national health care spending.[8]

As far as single payer/universal health care goes, I'm opposed to it for several reasons:

1: I don't think it's governments role to provide health insurance. If you want it, work and pay for it. I believe this for several reasons:

a: I believe in limited government.
b: Almost every program the government is in charge of is less efficient than it's private counterparts.
c: Universal health care forces everyone in to a one size fits all health care system. A 22 year old recent college graduate may not want or need that type of health care. He/She may only want catastrophic health care, which is much less expensive than a comprehensive health insurance policy. Under UHC that person is subsidizing others health care just like in Obama's plan. There's no reason that person shouldn't be able to buy a catastrophic health care policy and be done with it. I don't want the government defining what options I get in my health care plan. I want to make those decisions for myself.

2: I'm not that concerned about covering EVERYONE, at least not at this point. I'm more concerned with coming up with a long term sustainable health care plan. Many, if not most, countries with universal/single payer health care are going bankrupt. That's why many of them are increasingly expanding the role private health care has in their systems. Or some just haven't addressed the issue yet. Also, see #1 re: the role of government.

3: I believe that if we focus on bringing the costs down more people will be able to afford coverage and will do so. Once we've developed an efficient, cost effective system we can look at what additional measures we can or should take to increase access for those who still don't have it.

I'm sure you'll disagree with my position. That's fine. But that's what it is and you're not going to change it. So, if you want to focus on how we can improve our health care system to make it efficient and long term sustainable, great. If you want to continue debating the merits of universal health care we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[gocolts]

Even CNN is calling the White-African-American POTUS out for his rookie move blasting the Supreme Court.



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/?hpt=hp_bn4

What a focking joke. THe dude is either a complete imbecile or flat out lying to our faces and folks will still vote for him. Beyond belief.

[penultimatestraw]

First of all, I live how you selectively quote the article. If you look at the Canadian section of the Wikipedia article you'll see



As far as single payer/universal health care goes, I'm opposed to it for several reasons:

1: I don't think it's governments role to provide health insurance. If you want it, work and pay for it. I believe this for several reasons:

a: I believe in limited government.
b: Almost every program the government is in charge of is less efficient than it's private counterparts.
c: Universal health care forces everyone in to a one size fits all health care system. A 22 year old recent college graduate may not want or need that type of health care. He/She may only want catastrophic health care, which is much less expensive than a comprehensive health insurance policy. Under UHC that person is subsidizing others health care just like in Obama's plan. There's no reason that person shouldn't be able to buy a catastrophic health care policy and be done with it. I don't want the government defining what options I get in my health care plan. I want to make those decisions for myself.

2: I'm not that concerned about covering EVERYONE, at least not at this point. I'm more concerned with coming up with a long term sustainable health care plan. Many, if not most, countries with universal/single payer health care are going bankrupt. That's why many of them are increasingly expanding the role private health care has in their systems. Or some just haven't addressed the issue yet. Also, see #1 re: the role of government.

3: I believe that if we focus on bringing the costs down more people will be able to afford coverage and will do so. Once we've developed an efficient, cost effective system we can look at what additional measures we can or should take to increase access for those who still don't have it.

I'm sure you'll disagree with my position. That's fine. But that's what it is and you're not going to change it. So, if you want to focus on how we can improve our health care system to make it efficient and long term sustainable, great. If you want to continue debating the merits of universal health care we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I didn't selectively quote anything - what the hell are "non-medically necessary expenses" and why should they be covered by government-sponsored health insurance? The single payer covers all the medically necessary expenses, which isn't exactly what I am advocating.

In any event, when you announce you've made up your mind there really is no reason for debate/discussion. Kinda like it's hard to discuss the worldwide privatization of healthcare when you can't provide anything other than unsubstantiated opinion.

[Recliner Pilot]

What a focking joke. THe dude is either a complete imbecile or flat out lying to our faces and folks will still vote for him. Beyond belief.

I'm gonna have to go with "All of the above".

[nikki2200]

2: I'm not that concerned about covering EVERYONE, at least not at this point. I'm more concerned with coming up with a long term sustainable health care plan. Many, if not most, countries with universal/single payer health care are going bankrupt. That's why many of them are increasingly expanding the role private health care has in their systems. Or some just haven't addressed the issue yet. Also, see #1 re: the role of government.

OREALLY? Surely you have a link for that.

Let me guess... you're talking about Greece, right?

[penultimatestraw]

OREALLY? Surely you have a link for that.

Let me guess... you're talking about Greece, right?

I've asked like six times - he's playing hard to get.

America has the best healthcare in the world and doesn't need to learn anything from damn foreigners anyhow.

[Strike]

OREALLY? Surely you have a link for that.

Let me guess... you're talking about Greece, right?

Why would I provide a link to YOU? The last time we had a health care discussion you b*tched that no one was offering up a solution. I wrote a lengthy, detailed description of a starting point plan on what we could/should do to overhaul our health care system that included, *gasp*, LINKS. You didn't even bother to read those links. So why would I bother now?

Edit/add: Just so we're clear, here is your last post from the thread I mentioned above, which was posted AFTER I called you out in THAT THREAD for not responding:

Umm... Sorry? I forgot about this thread and I was out last night?

You had good points. I read them yesterday. The only things I thought were: 1. While not ALL insurance companies are for profit, the ones that are make up a big chunk of our financial markets and my point was that if they went down it would have a fairly significant economic impact and 2. A lot of your suggestions have to do with prescription drugs which is only a very small piece of the puzzle.

I haven't had time to read that article you posted yet.

So, why would I waste my time if you're going to engage in a thread and then abort it halfway through like Edjr would a baby?

[penultimatestraw]

Why would I provide a link to YOU? The last time we had a health care discussion you b*tched that no one was offering up a solution. I wrote a lengthy, detailed description of a starting point plan on what we could/should do to overhaul our health care system that included, *gasp*, LINKS. You didn't even bother to read those links. So why would I bother now?

Edit/add: Just so we're clear, here is your last post from the thread I mentioned above, which was posted AFTER I called you out in THAT THREAD for not responding:



So, why would I waste my time if you're going to engage in a thread and then abort it halfway through like Edjr would a baby?

I've provided ideas for discussion, with links supporting my assertions. Why so coy in responding to me? I asked the question first BTW (and second, third, fourth, etc.).

[TimmySmith]

Maybe Obummer needs to go back to the 2nd grade where they explain the 3 branches of government.

[Recliner Pilot]

Maybe Obummer needs to go back to the 2nd grade where they explain the 3 branches of government.

He can ride the short bus with Chucky Schumer.

[Strike]

I've provided ideas for discussion, with links supporting my assertions. Why so coy in responding to me? I asked the question first BTW (and second, third, fourth, etc.).

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on what types of changes should be made to our health care system. It seems that neither of us is going to budge on that. And that's fine. I disagree with single payer but acknowledge it as one type of health care system. It's just not one I want. At some point you just cut your losses. I think the topic of how we can reform our current system is a good topic for discussion. Obamacare has a good change of being overturned. If that happens we'll be back at the drawing board. Given that he would have passed single payer if he thought that was possible it's reasonable to assume that single payer will not be the route we head down should Obamacare be overturned. If we did go single payer I don't know that we can ever envision how it might be implemented given how they bastardized the bill they did pass just to get the votes to pass it. So it seems to me that looking at the current system's shortcomings and trying to come to some type of agreement on changes that would improve it is worthwhile. But, since you seem only interested in discussing reforms within the framework of single payer we come to a standstill. And I'm sick of arguing the semantics of what single payer means. So, until you entice me with something worthy of discussion I'll continue to pretty much ignore your posts on this particular issue.