Oh and just FTR, snaggle is back to his stupid ass PMs to circumvent the personal attack rules. Probably the 5-6th time he's done that, minimum.

you mean inverse selection rite

I know a few bits, the big changes, i dont need to know the bill in totality as it doesnt effect me however. I think you Americans are crazy for not having UHC on the NHS model, but that is another debate entirely.

I think its weird that you dont know the bill though, at least the core parts. Im sure this isnt the first thread you have seen on the subject and id bet you have posted about the bill, and against the bill, in the past.

Considering your post history phil (how are senators elected again?), you should probably take it from tsao to look something up when you're not 100% sure.

the poster asked if there was a single part of the bill i could support

KINDA HAD TO LOOK THAT ONE UP PHILL ARE YOU ****ING DONE BABBLING ABOUT NONSENSE?

Lol, you still keep trying to ring that bell but it has no tone. I wasnt sure of the exact mechanisms of the elections on Presidential cycles iirc. I bet you dont have a clue at the fine details of how my elections work either.

I don't comment strongly on britain/england/dragons elections.

SC overturn is 48% and that's one poll. In the same link you and snaggle posted repealing Obamacare because it's too liberal polls at 37-43% over a 1.5 year period. I know you want to stand with your Berkeley/Hollywood cocktail-party-liberal brethren on this one, but the fact is there's no way those people do anything to help repeal Obamacare and replace it with of the republicans' counterproposal of nothing.

No suzzer, the poll with the too liberal/too conservative is an approve/disapprove poll. Literally none of the repeal polls have a 'repeal because it's not liberal enough' option. You can look here if you want. I can find at least two polls favoring SC overturn btw.

Those aren't being pushed by liberals, and neither is the approve/disapprove poll, that's just dumb people giving a funny result.

The problem is that when it comes to health insurance the free market has opposing goals to the needs of the populace. Consider: if you own a health insurance company, there are ONLY two ways to make your insurance company more profitable than the guy next door:

1) Sign up more healthy people than he does
2) Deny more claims than he does

You can go to whatever business school you want, but when it comes to health insurance there are simply no other options. Of course, you can try and hide those facts with some fancy advertising claims and marketing material, but the bottom line is that if an insurance company is suddenly allowed to compete in market xyz, they're not going to make any money if the only people they sign up are seniors with diabetes and heart disease. No, if they want to make money, they need to sign up only healthy people, and if they totally had their druthers they would sign them up in their 20s and then drop them in their 40s when things start to go wrong with the human body. That's good for them, of course, but not so good for people over 40 (or 50 or 60), and in fact it's the whole reason why Medicare came about, because without it there would be NO OPTION for seniors to get health care.

Though of course you can still make money with a health insurance company if you sign up non-healthy people, but now you need to deny their claims, and in an unregulated health insurance market that's exactly what happens. Hell it happens now. Insurance companies have entire departments who pour through the language of their policies looking for ways to deny claims, and they deny millions of them. How is that good for anyone, except them, of course?

And that will inevitably lead to a huge segment of your population who has no insurance. In the US it's currently about 30-40 million people. What would President Taso do with them?

Bear in mind that every single one of them can VOTE, and if you don't come up with an acceptable plan they are 100% going to vote for the first liberal that comes along who does, unless your plan involves suspending the Constitution and implementing martial law, of course.

And if you put that belief up against 25-40,000 people dying each year, which would win out, President Taso?

And what if they can afford nothing? Just let them die in the streets?

Nice cop out.

dino-

The health care market is way more than just insurance. A free market doesn't require a 500k education to give you antibiotics for your sinus infection.

From what I understand you'd do just fine. There's a huge difference between specialists and someone who practices basic medicine. I shouldn't have to go to a full doctor and incur 200+ dollars in fees to get diagnosed with strep throat.

that wasn't a ****ing cop out that was a pretty sick awesome herman cain impression and i explained how i think healthcare could be improved like a post later.

The problem here is that health care is by nature complex. For example, say a person comes in and tells you that they're suffering from fatigue, a slight fever, and some arthritic-type pain in their joints. Would you diagnose them as just needing bed rest, which would be the case in probably 90% of patients, or would you also be able to recognize those as early signs of lupus? If someone has a persistent headache, is it because they've been drinking too much coffee, or is it a brain tumor? What about a baby that won't stop crying? Is it just colic, or is it an ear infection? How does a non MD make these determinations?

dude dino, as someone who has actually had that really rare case, pretty much every doctor (99.9%+) is going to diagnose you with the flu before lupus, caffeine before brain tumor, etc.

Those things only get diagnosed after you complain about them for awhile, not the first visit. A great system imo would be one were underlings treat the common every day stuff and bump it up to someone with more training if the basics didn't work or fit.

That would only be like, every other thing we do in the world, but w/e, give mds more power I want to get rich later.

You realise a lot of things can appear to be other things, right?

And ignoring that, you are assuming someone trained less can diagnose some things, then pass patients he cant diagnose onto others with more experience and so on, i assume? If so its a huge leap to assume that is a cheaper system overall than just training GPs at a wide range of shallow knowledge.

While America has runaway healthcare costs i find it highly unlikely the solution is to train doctors less, at least in the way you suggest. In fact i suspect better diagnosis training (ie more of it) could potentially lower costs because patients wouldnt be bounced around the system trying to find an accurate diagnosis using up costly hours with MRI scans and a whole range of other unnecessary tests.

Yeah, and it doesn't require a pilot's license to fly commercial airlines either, but I think it's not a bad idea.

Phil a goddamn strep test is a mother****ing swab and 5 minute auto lab test. You could literally train a monkey to do it.

No phil, going from 500k to train every person to 1 500k trainer for every 3 200k trainer or whatever would save a ton of money. The latter people actually exist btw (PAs, NPs, nurses).


Terming my solution as training doctors less is just awful, and illustrates you have no idea what I'm actually for. The solution is to allow more people to take care of basic medicine. Please, please, please go and ask a nurse if you think they are capable of diagnosing a common ailment like an ear infection/wheezing/etc. You're going to get one answer.

Right, because companies would LOVE to be the one that crashed because their pilots sucked. lol k. The airlines incentives to make sure they have good pilots is way stronger than any incentives a govt licensing agency has.

Im not talking in specific cases such as strep throat.

The point is that there are clear unintended consequences that you are ignoring due to the statistical fact that misdiagnosis will increase.

Misdiagnosis kills about 40 thousand people every year in America whilst they are seeing the expensively trained doctors. It would certainly increase under your proposed solution. When you throw in the costs of those thousands of patient's families suing the various medical institutions i cant see it being anything but a wash even if there is a paper saving ignoring the huge problem of a lot more people dying for no reason.

Actually a "great" system would be one where anytime you went in with any symptom at all, you got every test in the book to make sure you didn't have that rare ailment. However in the real world that's cost prohibitive, so we have to find a solution that balances the needs of the patient with the real world requirements for cost. You want to limit the situations where a full, 8-year educated doctor is required, whereas in reality a simpler solution might be to just socialize the whole thing. Then everyone can get the maximum amount of care available and the costs can be controlled by a central authority and everyone benefits. Other than the hated 'socialism' word, what's wrong with that?

watson and the robots gonna save us all

You're pretty ill-informed. If airlines weren't required by law to keep their planes serviced and their pilots trained they simply wouldn't, and this has been shown over and over again. Look up how many times the FAA has fined airlines for those very things.

You also may find it instructive to look up ValueJet. They had a crash and lost a lot of business because of negative press about their maintenance, and so to solve the problem they...wait for it...changed their name. Presto, problem solved!

Bolded is bull**** that MDs really want you to believe.

You know what's the best indicator of a success of a doctor? It's not who educated them, it's not their college GPA, it's not their MCAT score. It's how many times the physician has done what they are doing before. Just like everything else out there, the best people are normally the ones who have been around for awhile.

A great anecdote from something I've read is about hernia repair. Hernia repair today is currently done by general surgeons, and they kind of suck at it really. Most GS do other things most of the time. The best place for hernia repair is this little facility made up of doctors with specialties from OB to internal to whatever who do absolutely nothing but hernia repair. They don't have fancy degrees, they just do the procedure over and over and over again.

Having an MD doesn't make you into a magic medicine man. Actual experience makes you a good physician.

Clearly this thread needs renodoc to come in and tell us how right ikes is about the ease of medical diagnoses. Though of course he is a member of the physician conspirarcy community and may be biased, so that may or may not be a good idea.