We need medical reform NOW!!!!!!!! - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

samcol · 12-08-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Still waiting to hear defnse of the current system and how we're going to pay for this nasty pandemic.......

The silence from the people opposed to scialized healthcare and supporters of the current system is deafening and very apparent they cannot answer and defend their stance.

The current system is socialized, and as it moves farther to the left everyday it continues to get worse and worse. More government is not the solution here. There are over 132,000 pages of government regulations in medicare compared to 17,000 pages of tax code. I can't even comprehend how much money is being lost in bureaucracy.

Quote:

Big Challenges Ahead

Managed care is the accepted method of delivering medical care today – to the frustration of many. Read up! There are 132,000 pages of Medicare regulations, compared with only 17,000 pages of the tax code. A compliance plan to guard against mistakes in filing government forms is offered by your friendly attorney for a mere $7,000.

Additional employees are needed to file insurance forms and keep up with regulations in operating laboratories. Even more employees will soon be needed to implement the 1,500 pages of regulations protecting patient privacy – regulations that in reality turn control of all our medical records over to the US government and establish a national medical data bank.

Fines of up to $25,000 and 10 years imprisonment are possible for fraud and for mistakes that are hard to distinguish from fraud.

Capitation depersonalizes medicine. FDA regulations, though designed to help, often delay the arrival and raise the cost of new drugs. An average new drug now requires 15 years of testing and $500 million in costs. Many question whether or not this process is cost-effective. A more liberalized approach to allowing patients and doctors to use experimental medicines could speed up the process and lower costs.

Medical privacy rules are expected to cost $22 billion over 4 years to implement – costs that must be passed on to the taxpayer or to the patient.

HCFA has actually requested authority to carry guns on their audits.

Another challenge to personalized care is the continued influence of technology and super specialization. It’s easy for the patient to be lost in the process and become only an object in a scientific whirlwind. This challenge is not new, but it will continue to affect the practice of medicine to an even greater extent.

Legal challenges through lawyer-driven lawsuits are of epidemic proportion and will continue to plague our profession, thus driving up costs while prompting unnecessary testing. Threats of an actual lawsuit do affect the way we all practice. The National Practitioners Data Bank has been set up to keep all the records of doctors’ misconduct, which is also subject to the errors of politicians, bureaucrats and spiteful lawyers. Rectifying errors and avoiding misinterpretations in this process are difficult, if not impossible tasks. Centralized government bureaucracy won’t solve the problems of ethics and measuring ability in medicine.

samcol · 12-08-2005, 07:02 AM

Doctor and congressman Ron Paul on how less government is better for the health care industry and I happen to agree. More government broke our system of the best and most affordable health care in the world

Quote:

Free Market Medicine

Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate.

Freed from HMO and government bureaucracy, Dr. Berry can focus on medicine rather than billing. Operating on a cash basis lowers his overhead considerably, allowing him to charge much lower prices than other doctors. He often charges just $35 for routine maladies, which is not much more than one’s insurance co-pay in other offices. His affordable prices enable low-income patients to see him before minor problems become serious, and unlike most doctors, Dr. Berry sees patients the same day on a walk-in basis. Yet beyond his low prices and quick appointments, Dr. Berry provides patients with excellent medical care.

While many liberals talk endlessly about medical care for the poor, Dr. Berry actually helps uninsured people every day. His patients are largely low-income working people, who cannot afford health insurance but don’t necessarily qualify for state assistance. Some of his uninsured patients have been forced to visit hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment because no doctor would see them. Others disliked the long waits and inferior treatment they endured at government clinics. For many of his patients, Dr. Berry’s clinic has been a godsend.

Dr. Berry’s experience illustrates the benefits of eliminating the middleman in health care. For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.

We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.

While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. In fact, one very prominent Senator now attacking HMOs is on record in the 1970s lauding them. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer.

We can hardly expect more government to cure our current health care woes. As with all goods and services, medical care is best delivered by the free market, with competition and financial incentives keeping costs down. When patients spend their own money for health care, they have a direct incentive to negotiate lower costs with their doctor. When government controls health care, all cost incentives are lost. Dr. Berry and others like him may one day be seen as consumer heroes who challenged the third-party health care system and resisted the trend toward socialized medicine in America.

Ustwo · 12-08-2005, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Still waiting to hear defnse of the current system and how we're going to pay for this nasty pandemic.......

The silence from the people opposed to scialized healthcare and supporters of the current system is deafening and very apparent they cannot answer and defend their stance.

I stopped reading a while ago, and btw grats on the new job, I bet you can pay your bills now and get insurance.

Anyhow, first there needs to be a pandemic, there isn't one. There could be one and there could be a meteor hitting the earth, both are scary, both will happen, we don't know when, so wondering who will pay for something thats not happened is a bit silly at this point, but also pretty obvious.

You would and will handle the pandemic like a natural disaster. Who pays for a natural disaster?

If its small enough insurance companies, if its too big for them, the government steps in, and its one of the few places where I will agree the government has a place in stepping in.

What that has to do with making all pay gigantic taxes so you can get 'free' health care because you lacked the forsight to get insurance is beyond me.

All socialized medicine will do is make a pandemic worse, because we will have less doctors, less staff, and less resources than we currently have in the US. If you don't know that part of the socialized systems, you need to do more homework.

pan6467 · 12-08-2005, 09:56 AM

Still waiting..... (I'm sure UsTwo had an infinite amount of ... but I no longer read his posts.... all he does is insults.... no debates no facts... so pleas UsTwo save your time and don't reply to me)

Here are the facts:

Bush has this great plan for Martial Law on a pandemic that may or may not hit the US.

Many in America who have no insurance or fear they cannot pay the deductible do not go to see doctors.

Many of these people work in the public.

So, if this pandemic that Bush has people believing hits, what is going to happen?

Because these people have no insurance and work in the public, they will contaminate other thus making the pandemic worse and more expensive.

Who is going to pay their medical bills when they can't?

Who is going to pay for the vaccine, when they can't?

I'm asking who's paying for this, how can you defend a system that is flawed to the point where people will get sicker?

I'm still waiting for an answer as to who is going to pay, and/or what do you think this scenario is going to lead to?

Personally, if it is as bad as Bush wants us to believe (and the fact he wants Martial Law for it.... one would want to believe he believes it will be bad (or he's just power hungry)........ so therefore if it is that bad, then what will happen to our system the way it stands today?

Insurance companies aren't going to take the hit, the executives will golden parachute, bankrupt out and have the government bail them out.....

So that means we will probably be paying more in the long run than if we had just had universal healthcare and been done with it.

It's not rocket science...... it's pretty cut and dry.

Unless you want to say that Bush and his Martial Law is an over reaction..... and this scenario will never happen.

pan6467 · 12-08-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

pan, your question as stated cannot be answered. you want an explanation of the current system yet are looking for reasons to oppose socialized medicine. What do you think we have right now? we have socialized medicine.

do I defend the current system? hell no. its atrocious.
how do we fix it? abolish the health insurance industry.

it is the health insurance industry, hell its the insurance industry period, that is causing the problem. It's also how we have socialized medicine. and socialized disaster insurance, auto insurance, anything with insurance.

You and Samcol do make good points and show the system we have now does not work, will not work and cannot work long term or in the face of a true crisis.

When a NEED for the people is run solely for profit and they make that need so expensive that people cannot afford it, then you have to change the system.

I have never said I wanted free healthcare, I firmly believe in a sliding scale system.

One of the most serious problems facing the healthcare industry is insurance companies wanting to fight what they pay.

If you go to the wrong hospital, if you see a specialist before you have been approved, if they deem the surgery you need is "experimental" or unneeded yet the doctor knows you need it..... they won't pay, or they'll pay far less and you pay far more.

I am pointing out a fatal flaw in the system, if there's this great pandemic, we're going to say it's okay for the government to pay for people's healthcare then?

So in special circumstances it's ok, but otherwise no?

Who defines these special circumstances? The healthcare industry? the insurance companies? President Bush?

I have shown we are behind in infant mortality, we are behind in the amount of doctors, we are behind the rest of the world (countries that do have Universal healthcare) in many major aspects.

Surely, a country that wants to claim to be the best can do better, can't we?

Or are we so run by our own greed as a whole that we won't care until it affects us personally?

I'm sorry, I don't like the answers and no it has nothing to do with "my" case. My case opened my eyes to how bad the system really is. I expect noone to pay for my healthcare, but in reality those who are insured and tax dollars will be going to pay for it.

I just think we can have a better system.

dksuddeth · 12-08-2005, 10:29 AM

when you go to a specialist without 'authorization' from the insurance, you get stuck for it. Say you try to get authorization and they still deny...would you still go?

the insurance industy does not care about your heath. it only cares about its costs.

now, if you go to a doctor without insurance, your doctor is going to recomend treatments and he will outline how expensive each one will be, will you choose the most expensive?

the health insurance companies do not allow a free market system to function and there is the problem. removing them is the only way to improve the medical industry.

on to your pandemic questions.....if people are emergency type sick, they are not refused treatment. If these people end up not being able to pay back the costs, the hospitals are either 'out the cost' or receive some compensation from the government. That compensation comes back to us as taxpayers or higher costs for care later on. If we make it so that people MUST pay for the care they receive, people will be careful on when they actually have to go to the ER or doctor and when they will deal with their virus and ride it out. Less patients for a hospital means less income which will lead to lower prices due to a number of issues. Therefore the cost of private healthcare WILL go down.

Cynthetiq · 12-08-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Insurance companies aren't going to take the hit, the executives will golden parachute, bankrupt out and have the government bail them out.....

So that means we will probably be paying more in the long run than if we had just had universal healthcare and been done with it.

It's not rocket science...... it's pretty cut and dry.

already said it would be us. the taxpayer ends up paying more for cost of goods and services always.

Ustwo · 12-08-2005, 11:01 AM

Whenever anyone thinks direct government control of parts of the economy will make things better and lower costs I have to question their judgement if not their sanity.

I'm going to leave it at that, smile, and back away.

pan6467 · 12-08-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

on to your pandemic questions.....if people are emergency type sick, they are not refused treatment. If these people end up not being able to pay back the costs, the hospitals are either 'out the cost' or receive some compensation from the government. That compensation comes back to us as taxpayers or higher costs for care later on. If we make it so that people MUST pay for the care they receive, people will be careful on when they actually have to go to the ER or doctor and when they will deal with their virus and ride it out. Less patients for a hospital means less income which will lead to lower prices due to a number of issues. Therefore the cost of private healthcare WILL go down.

The rest I have no problems with..... it's this part.

If when this pandemic hits (and it's going to be horrid, because Bush has Martial Law plans ready for it), then we are in serious trouble.

What got me started on this train of thought is watching 60 Minutes' bit on it (I was watching the show to see Howard Stern.... great piece on him BTW).... and they said that if it mutates and becomes human borne, we'll have like 30 days to contain it.

Now, the question that has to be focussed on here in the US is this.....

Most people who can't afford healthcare end up waiting until it is seriously bad before they go.

That means as the flu incubated in them they could have passed it on to everyone they met, and so on and so on. So by the time they do go into the hospital, they have infected exponentially far more people than if they had felt safe enough and not scared of the cost to go and get treated as soon as symptoms started showing.

Preventative medicine so to speak.

This is what bothers me, what scares me, what shows the system to be fatally flawed.

We cannot wait for people to get to the point where they are hospitalized before we treat them, in cases like these. We may not have time to. We need to educate the people to feel safe to go in and not worry about cost the second they show symptoms.

If we don't, if we allow people to get to the point of no return before we treat them...... then we'll have a much bigger and worse problem on our hands.

flstf · 12-08-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Whenever anyone thinks direct government control of parts of the economy will make things better and lower costs I have to question their judgement if not their sanity.

I will agree that the government is very inefficient and should only have control over things that are absolutely necessary like our national defense. Those of you who are against considering nationalizing healthcare offer very few suggestions on how to fix the present system other than getting rid of the insurance companies.

There is little competition in the healthcare industry. About the only price controls there are currently are the result of insurance companies getting doctors and hospitals to agree on rates for certain procedures. With little free market influence the healthcare costs are spiralling out of control and in the not too distant future even the middle class will be priced out of the market.

In order for a market to work there has to be open and visable pricing and free-competitive service providers. Hospitals and doctors seem to have little of either of these. If we can't figure out how to make the healthcare industry into a free market industry than it is probably best that the government step in and control it.

I don't think we should wait too much longer for these industries to become competitive because healthcare is too important to the nation's overall well being. I would feel differently if there were some good ideas on how to fix it but they have to be better than just outlawing insurance companies.

dksuddeth · 12-08-2005, 12:44 PM

i have a close family friend who is a doctor and happens to own her own clinic. She has told me numerous times that, between the insurance companies (of which she has discontinued working with a few) and the state medical boards regulations, the costs incurred with both of these entities is a major part of her expense.

Now, looking at medical care in a free market atmosphere all we would have to do is let doctors set the rates without the insurance companies. That alone would induce more people to become doctors. After that, competition between doctors, medical supply companies, pharmas, and anything else associated with the medical industry would keep costs of services as low as possible. People would then be free to pay for only the care that they actually need and it would be less expensive than paying the insurance industry.

Ustwo · 12-08-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I will agree that the government is very inefficient and should only have control over things that are absolutely necessary like our national defense. Those of you who are against considering nationalizing healthcare offer very few suggestions on how to fix the present system other than getting rid of the insurance companies.

I'm a big fan of health savings accounts with pre-tax dollars, but thats another issue.

What I don't see is how the concept of 'Its somewhat broken, lets let the government do it' fixes anything.

It does make things 'fair' because we all get to live with a shity, overpriced system, full of government waste..

It doesn't make it free, (as in freedom) and I'd rather be free than fair.

Are costs high for hospital care? Yep. Might they get too high for the system in the future? Yep

What happens in a free maket when prices are too high? Do they stay high?

Already what insurance companies do is work with the hospitals for a 'fair' fee. The hospitals have little choice but to take it since it beats not having patients. The only people who really get screwed by the system would be someone uninsured who is lower middle class. They basicly have to go broke before the system kicks in. They won't ever be dying in the street of untreated disease, but they lose a lot of money, and unlike the insurance carriers they can't negotiate prices down. Thats all I want fixed.

pan6467 · 12-08-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

i have a close family friend who is a doctor and happens to own her own clinic. She has told me numerous times that, between the insurance companies (of which she has discontinued working with a few) and the state medical boards regulations, the costs incurred with both of these entities is a major part of her expense.

Now, looking at medical care in a free market atmosphere all we would have to do is let doctors set the rates without the insurance companies. That alone would induce more people to become doctors. After that, competition between doctors, medical supply companies, pharmas, and anything else associated with the medical industry would keep costs of services as low as possible. People would then be free to pay for only the care that they actually need and it would be less expensive than paying the insurance industry.

That is a good idea, but I don't see it happening.

I don't see insurance companies killing the cow, until we have a pandemic or catastrophic problem and then it will be too late.

Nor do I see the medical profession lowering costs.

I am a firm believer of a sliding scale based medical program. I think until a better system is devised that is the only way.

As for asking for the "government to pay for me". I have a right, I pay taxes, I pay probably more of a percentage than some people who make more than I. Plus, I pay the "voluntary tax" when I smoke, when I drink soda, when I drive my car, when I use my phone, etc. So IT is my money also.

We are all on this planet to live and share and enjoy life, yet I guess some people believe only only those who make a certain amount are the only ones worthy enough to live healthy happy lives. And yet, those people are so miserable they must continually bully, attack and just be complete immature idiots to everyone else. Ah, but Karma's a bitch.

Ustwo · 12-08-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That is a good idea, but I don't see it happening.

Thats because you really don't have an understanding of whats going on, but you like to think you do.

My field has almost no insurance coverage. Of the people who come to me, maybe 1/2 have coverage and of them it pays for, at best, 1/4th of the treatment. Its mostly out of pocket.

And guess what? I haven't raised my fees in two years.

Fee's for the last 15 years have basicly kept pace with inflation.

Fee's overall are lower than they were (in todays and yesterdays dollars) 40 years ago due to advances in the field.

That, my friend, is the free market.

And I do have a dirty secret to tell you. Every now and then someone will have full coverage, its rare, maybe 1 in 100 have it, and I never ask before I give my fee, because when I find out I always think 'damn I could have charged them more'. Its human nature. If I know someone has 5 kids and is paying me out of pocket, I tend to lower my fee, but if I found out they had full coverage do I have the same feelings? Hell no. And the patients, do they dicker over the fee when they have full coverage? Never, not once.

I don't fear my karma at all pan, but if we ever pass some full socalized program and its your loved one waiting 5 months to just see a doctor and a month for the basic tests, and then you are told she is too old to get a transplant, remember this debate, paybacks are a bitch.

flstf · 12-08-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm a big fan of health savings accounts with pre-tax dollars, but thats another issue.

So am I. I opened one a couple of years ago but can only afford putting in about $3 - $5K per year and I'm 56 so it won't grow very much for me. But all young people should open these and maybe when they get to be my age they will have a lot for medical needs (I think when they get 65 they can use it for any reason). Also if people are spending their own money maybe they will shop better for doctors/dentists. Not much we can do about hospital costs though.

Quote:

If I know someone has 5 kids and is paying me out of pocket, I tend to lower my fee, but if I found out they had full coverage do I have the same feelings? Hell no. And the patients, do they dicker over the fee when they have full coverage? Never, not once.

I have no doubt that you run your personal practice in a reasonable and professional manner and if I lived near your office I would certainly use your service if you had an opening. I would rather you based your charge on competitive reasons instead of out of your sense of fairness but I'd take it either way.

MoonDog · 12-08-2005, 02:06 PM

My father would see Amish patients, who would often have no currency with which to pay him for his time. Dad would, however, take that into consideration, and we would often as a family find ourselves with a half a pig, cow, or other something to pay for his medical time. That worked not just for the Amish, but for some of the poor in the same area who needed to see a doctor, but just couldn't afford it. The whole area is farming, so we would get produce and meat all the time.

That doesn't really contribute to the overall discussion, but Ustwo talking about adjusting fees reminded me of my childhood.

Ustwo · 12-08-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I have no doubt that you run your personal practice in a reasonable and professional manner and if I lived near your office I would certainly use your service if you had an opening. I would rather you based your charge on competitive reasons instead of out of your sense of fairness but I'd take it either way.

Oh it is based on competitive reasons, if I go too high people go somewhere else. Fairness is on a individual basis, where we give discounts to big families and the like. Since its mostly not insured, people shop around, and I'm often a second or even third opinion.

12-08-2005, 09:56 AM	#84 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Still waiting..... (I'm sure UsTwo had an infinite amount of ... but I no longer read his posts.... all he does is insults.... no debates no facts... so pleas UsTwo save your time and don't reply to me) Here are the facts: Bush has this great plan for Martial Law on a pandemic that may or may not hit the US. Many in America who have no insurance or fear they cannot pay the deductible do not go to see doctors. Many of these people work in the public. So, if this pandemic that Bush has people believing hits, what is going to happen? Because these people have no insurance and work in the public, they will contaminate other thus making the pandemic worse and more expensive. Who is going to pay their medical bills when they can't? Who is going to pay for the vaccine, when they can't? I'm asking who's paying for this, how can you defend a system that is flawed to the point where people will get sicker? I'm still waiting for an answer as to who is going to pay, and/or what do you think this scenario is going to lead to? Personally, if it is as bad as Bush wants us to believe (and the fact he wants Martial Law for it.... one would want to believe he believes it will be bad (or he's just power hungry)........ so therefore if it is that bad, then what will happen to our system the way it stands today? Insurance companies aren't going to take the hit, the executives will golden parachute, bankrupt out and have the government bail them out..... So that means we will probably be paying more in the long run than if we had just had universal healthcare and been done with it. It's not rocket science...... it's pretty cut and dry. Unless you want to say that Bush and his Martial Law is an over reaction..... and this scenario will never happen. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 12-08-2005 at 09:59 AM..

12-08-2005, 10:29 AM	#86 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	when you go to a specialist without 'authorization' from the insurance, you get stuck for it. Say you try to get authorization and they still deny...would you still go? the insurance industy does not care about your heath. it only cares about its costs. now, if you go to a doctor without insurance, your doctor is going to recomend treatments and he will outline how expensive each one will be, will you choose the most expensive? the health insurance companies do not allow a free market system to function and there is the problem. removing them is the only way to improve the medical industry. on to your pandemic questions.....if people are emergency type sick, they are not refused treatment. If these people end up not being able to pay back the costs, the hospitals are either 'out the cost' or receive some compensation from the government. That compensation comes back to us as taxpayers or higher costs for care later on. If we make it so that people MUST pay for the care they receive, people will be careful on when they actually have to go to the ER or doctor and when they will deal with their virus and ride it out. Less patients for a hospital means less income which will lead to lower prices due to a number of issues. Therefore the cost of private healthcare WILL go down. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-08-2005, 11:01 AM	#88 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Whenever anyone thinks direct government control of parts of the economy will make things better and lower costs I have to question their judgement if not their sanity. I'm going to leave it at that, smile, and back away. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-08-2005, 12:44 PM	#91 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	i have a close family friend who is a doctor and happens to own her own clinic. She has told me numerous times that, between the insurance companies (of which she has discontinued working with a few) and the state medical boards regulations, the costs incurred with both of these entities is a major part of her expense. Now, looking at medical care in a free market atmosphere all we would have to do is let doctors set the rates without the insurance companies. That alone would induce more people to become doctors. After that, competition between doctors, medical supply companies, pharmas, and anything else associated with the medical industry would keep costs of services as low as possible. People would then be free to pay for only the care that they actually need and it would be less expensive than paying the insurance industry. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-08-2005, 02:06 PM	#96 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	My father would see Amish patients, who would often have no currency with which to pay him for his time. Dad would, however, take that into consideration, and we would often as a family find ourselves with a half a pig, cow, or other something to pay for his medical time. That worked not just for the Amish, but for some of the poor in the same area who needed to see a doctor, but just couldn't afford it. The whole area is farming, so we would get produce and meat all the time. That doesn't really contribute to the overall discussion, but Ustwo talking about adjusting fees reminded me of my childhood.