Medicare should be allowed to negociate prices, heres why

What is that supposed to mean?

Corporations are allowed to negociate prices so why should the number one buyer not be able to do so?

The reason is once they can EVERYONE will see that Gov can do it cheaper than the free market because the profit cost will be removed.
 
No reason not to let medicare to bargain for lower prices. It's not interfering with the market, that's just a part of the market. Republicans just love corps more than the market.
 
They know if medicare can negociate prices they will get lower than the going rate for these iteams are sold anywhere. As it stands now Medicare is kept paying the highest prices in the fucking world so that the Republicans corporation butt buddies can make a killing and also so the Republicans can spew their bullshit montra that government cant do it as well as corps can. Republicans like to say government cant do anything right and then get elelcted and PROVE IT!
 
Desh said:
They know if medicare can negociate prices they will get lower than the going rate for these iteams are sold anywhere. As it stands now Medicare is kept paying the highest prices in the fucking world so that the Republicans corporation butt buddies can make a killing and also so the Republicans can spew their bullshit montra that government cant do it as well as corps can. Republicans like to say government cant do anything right and then get elelcted and PROVE IT!
Click to expand...


And will nationalized healthcare the monopoly will be even tighter.
 
How is it nationalized if the companies are still providing the services?

You need to look up the definitions.

Its called a single payer system and the work and goods we pay for are still provided by the free market.
 
Desh said:
How is it nationalized if the companies are still providing the services?

You need to look up the definitions.

Its called a single payer system and the work and goods we pay for are still provided by the free market.
Click to expand...

WHat does single payer mean? You tell me.
 
It means we pay for the services through the government. That means we get to negociate the prices from the providers as one huge unit of buyers. It means the medical fields will no longer have profit margins which are sky high while Americans die becuase they can not afford the prices the medical businesses insist on charging due to greed and the high cost of using emergency medicine as their only means of treatment. It means Americans will no longer have to try to get healthcare in a system that is designed to refuse them healthcare to ensure corporate profit margins.
 
AssHatZombie said:
WHat does single payer mean? You tell me.
Click to expand...
It means that there is only one source for payment of services. In this case it would be the government.

Single payer systems are also set to actually reduce cost by reducing duplication in equipment and manpower. Each hospital would not need to own an expensive machine, for instance, when one in a region could own it and others could be sent there for testing.
 
Damocles said:
It means that there is only one source for payment of services. In this case it would be the government.

Single payer systems are also set to actually reduce cost by reducing duplication in equipment and manpower. Each hospital would not need to own an expensive machine when one in a region could own it and others could be sent there for testing.
Click to expand...

Yet I'm sure they will have firmly fixed vendor list. It will be a government enforced cartel for a few provider corporations. Not good.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yet I'm sure they will have firmly fixed vendor list. It will be a government enforced cartel for a few provider corporations. Not good.
Click to expand...
I wasn't promoting it, I was defining it. You asked what it meant.

There was a time that I thought it was a good idea. But in order for it to work they must control totally the medical providers. One could not have private practice at all, if they did they'd buy the machines for access, it would dissolve the system.

So I looked further and found that indeed Canada had outlawed all private practice. No go for me. Bad idea, too much government control. Then I find that many of their doctors come here because they want to be able to practice medicine. To give tests and determine results, etc. Single-payer systems don't work that way, you can't do the test nor determine the results for instance...

Personally, I want a system where doctors are fulfilled and satisfied because I know that the fulfilled and satisfied people do a better job. I'd even prefer to pay more to receive care from such a source than from a cog in the wheel of bureaucracy...
 
Damocles said:
I wasn't promoting it, I was defining it. You asked what it meant.

There was a time that I thought it was a good idea. But in order for it to work they must control totally the medical providers. One could not have private practice at all, if they did they'd buy the machines for access, it would dissolve the system.

So I looked further and found that indeed Canada had outlawed all private practice. No go for me. Bad idea, too much government control. Then I find that many of their doctors come here because they want to be able to practice medicine. To give tests and determine results, etc. Single-payer systems don't work that way, you can't do the test nor determine the results for instance...

Personally, I want a system where doctors are fulfilled and satisfied because I know that the fulfilled and satisfied people do a better job. I'd even prefer to pay more to receive care from such a source than from a cog in the wheel of bureaucracy...
Click to expand...


I wasn't saying you were wanting it, I was just further elaborating on the stupidity of it.
 
I think even a Canadian system would be better than what we currently have. We however dont have to do everything exactly like they do.
 
The Australian system is single-payer, federal government agency as well as a private system. Private practice is very healthy here because we can purchase private health insurance if we wish. The two-tier system annoys the ideologues but I think it works, having used both the public and the private systems for serious health issues. The conservative government did give the system a bit of a dust-up but they'd never dismantle it, it would cause huge problems for any government that tried it.

Anyway, it works for us.
 
Damocles said:
I wasn't promoting it, I was defining it. You asked what it meant.

There was a time that I thought it was a good idea. But in order for it to work they must control totally the medical providers. One could not have private practice at all, if they did they'd buy the machines for access, it would dissolve the system.

So I looked further and found that indeed Canada had outlawed all private practice. No go for me. Bad idea, too much government control. Then I find that many of their doctors come here because they want to be able to practice medicine. To give tests and determine results, etc. Single-payer systems don't work that way, you can't do the test nor determine the results for instance...

Personally, I want a system where doctors are fulfilled and satisfied because I know that the fulfilled and satisfied people do a better job. I'd even prefer to pay more to receive care from such a source than from a cog in the wheel of bureaucracy...
Click to expand...

I don't understand what the bolded part means. I know the extent of control the government places on practitioners, but how are they not allowed to practice medicine specifically, here. Could you elaborate a little more? For example, how would testing and treatment for something such as HIV differ here than it would where you live?
 
Said1 said:
I don't understand what the bolded part means. I know the extent of control the government places on practitioners, but how are they not allowed to practice medicine specifically, here. Could you elaborate a little more? For example, how would testing and treatment for something such as HIV differ here than it would where you live?
Click to expand...
Here, the doctor sends them for tests in his own hospital, gets the results, determines results according to his own diagnosis. Many times that is impossible there, they have to send them elsewhere to get the test as the equipment necessary is regulated to a different hospital in the region. The results are interpreted there, often the patient ends up being treated there. The doctor was barely involved.

However HIV would likely not differ. It would more likely differ with far more expensive equipment.

It is the reason that they give when they come here. One thing you may do is google it up and see if I'm just talking out my behind.

You make private practice illegal and over regulate where tests and treatment is done you wind up with cogs in the wheel.

Here's a story about one of the problems in the National Post. Over regulation keeps qualified doctors from even practicing, even though they were actively sought to fill in the shortages...

Shortages caused by what?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=ff90ad9a-27fc-40e5-bd16-369bb739f6fe&k=68609

And here is one about Canadian educated doctors leaving for better "working conditions", what caused the shortages to begin with...

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Aug2000/DoctorsLeavingCanada.html
 
Damocles said:
Here, the doctor sends them for tests in his own hospital, gets the results, determines results according to his own diagnosis. Many times that is impossible there, they have to send them elsewhere to get the test as the equipment necessary is regulated to a different hospital in the region. The results are interpreted there, often the patient ends up being treated there. The doctor was barely involved.

However HIV would likely not differ. It would more likely differ with far more expensive equipment.

It is the reason that they give when they come here. One thing you may do is google it up and see if I'm just talking out my behind.

You make private practice illegal and over regulate where tests and treatment is done you wind up with cogs in the wheel.

Here's a story about one of the problems in the National Post. Over regulation keeps qualified doctors from even practicing, even though they were actively sought to fill in the shortages...

Shortages caused by what?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=ff90ad9a-27fc-40e5-bd16-369bb739f6fe&k=68609

And here is one about Canadian educated doctors leaving for better "working conditions", what caused the shortages to begin with...

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Aug2000/DoctorsLeavingCanada.html
Click to expand...

Doctors are able to do what you described above, here in Canada. That is, they are able to test and treat people in the same hospital. The doctor who inevitably treats the patient may vary because not all doctors practice the same specialty, but that's normal, isn't it? In some situations, there are specialty centres attached to some hospitals ie eye institute, but the doctor you see at any city hospital will more than likely not be performing retna surgery - not all eye procedures are performed at the eye institue, either. I was unaware of any legislation that prevented doctors from testing and treating patients at the hospital where they have 'rights' (I forget what the technical term for it is). This might be the case with MRIs, I'm not sure.

The rest I agree with. Prarie doctors protested like mad when health care was socialized. I would go for a two teir system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top