The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 506

scaeagles · 12-09-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Heath care should not be a for profit industry for people other than doctors and the people who work in the offices/hospitals. Their profit should be their salary. I have no problem with doctors making a lot of money. I have a huge issue with the CEOs of insurance companies making a ton of money in bonuses based upon how much money they didn't spend in denial of care.

What about the scientists/chemists who come up with some miracle medication? How should they be compensated? If the medication is too expensive for people to afford because of their salaries, maybe they shouldn't make that much.

BarTopDancer · 12-09-2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What about the scientists/chemists who come up with some miracle medication? How should they be compensated? If the medication is too expensive for people to afford because of their salaries, maybe they shouldn't make that much.

Them too.

One of the other issues with the current state of medicine is the litigious society we live in. Malpractice insurance is through the roof because people sue for everything that goes wrong - and the papers they sign with the risks involve mean nothing in court. Those malpractice insurance costs are passed on to us.

scaeagles · 12-09-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Them too. (referring to pharmaceutical scientists in an earlier post)

OK.....so it is OK for specialists and surgeons to make lots of money, but not for chemists who develop a new medicine. Why? What about the people that think that those surgeons make too much, as you say you think those pharmaceutical researchers make too much?

And what about the person who thinks the medical equipment used to diagnose something is too expensive? I have no idea how much an MRI machine costs, but i bet it's a pretty penny. I am certain the machine costs exponentially as much money as the parts that go into it. I bet the person who holds the patents (if any) makes a lot of money on those. If the government simply sets a price on those machines, then the tests are cheaper for the people that need it and insurance costs less.

BarTopDancer · 12-09-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

OK.....so it is OK for specialists and surgeons to make lots of money, but not for chemists who develop a new medicine. Why? What about the people that think that those surgeons make too much, as you say you think those pharmaceutical researchers make too much?

And what about the person who thinks the medical equipment used to diagnose something is too expensive? I have no idea how much an MRI machine costs, but i bet it's a pretty penny. I am certain the machine costs exponentially as much money as the parts that go into it. I bet the person who holds the patents (if any) makes a lot of money on those. If the government simply sets a price on those machines, then the tests are cheaper for the people that need it and insurance costs less.

I was agreeing with you! They should be compensated for their talents. The CEO of the insurance company should not be compensated for saving money because they denied care to people.

JWBear · 12-09-2009, 10:34 AM

I sometimes wish Canada would annex us. <sigh>

scaeagles · 12-09-2009, 11:36 AM

Makes me ill, really, and it is a sad political reality that once people get something they expect it to be there and should you dare mess with it in any fashion, they vote you out of office. Social Security, medicare, whatever.

If the government employees union negotiates some form of group health care plan with their employer I view that as no different than any employer doing the same with their employees. The employees can opt out should they wish. Frankly, Id have no problem with that. Something tells me it wouldn't be quite the same as the congressional and senatorial plans.

Alex · 12-09-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Something tells me it wouldn't be quite the same as the congressional and senatorial plans.

All federal employees, including representatives and senators have access to the exact same suite of medical plans.

scaeagles · 12-09-2009, 11:46 AM

However, if her rates for her surgery were half of what they are, or one third of what they are, and that was the case with all surgeons/medical providers, insurance would be less expensive because they would not be paying the providers as much.

scaeagles · 12-09-2009, 11:52 AM

Do they? My bad.

Alex · 12-09-2009, 12:00 PM

Yes they do. That said, just like anywhere that offers multiple plans where some are more expensive than others (and presumably better), the fact that senators and representatives make more money means they are more able to afford the better ones than the guy cleaning bathrooms at BFE National Park. But there is no plan that you gain access to with your Capitol Building office.

(Not to mention many of them are independently wealthy.)

12-09-2009, 10:34 AM	#5
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	I sometimes wish Canada would annex us. <sigh> __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2009, 11:36 AM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Makes me ill, really, and it is a sad political reality that once people get something they expect it to be there and should you dare mess with it in any fashion, they vote you out of office. Social Security, medicare, whatever. If the government employees union negotiates some form of group health care plan with their employer I view that as no different than any employer doing the same with their employees. The employees can opt out should they wish. Frankly, Id have no problem with that. Something tells me it wouldn't be quite the same as the congressional and senatorial plans.
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2009, 11:46 AM	#8
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	However, if her rates for her surgery were half of what they are, or one third of what they are, and that was the case with all surgeons/medical providers, insurance would be less expensive because they would not be paying the providers as much.
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2009, 11:52 AM	#9
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Do they? My bad.
	Submit to Quotes

12-09-2009, 12:00 PM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes they do. That said, just like anywhere that offers multiple plans where some are more expensive than others (and presumably better), the fact that senators and representatives make more money means they are more able to afford the better ones than the guy cleaning bathrooms at BFE National Park. But there is no plan that you gain access to with your Capitol Building office. (Not to mention many of them are independently wealthy.)
	Submit to Quotes