Money-Driven Medicine

[kuzadd]

The film MONEY-DRIVEN MEDICINE reveals how a profit-hungry "medical-industrial complex" has turned health care into a system where millions are squandered on unnecessary tests, unproven and sometimes unwanted procedures and overpriced prescription drugs.

You can watch/listen or read the transcript.

Informative for the healthcare debate.

Especially for those who 'believe' like a religion that private care is going to improve care.

[Pliny]

The Canadian healthcare system isn't money driven of course because it is "free".

[Topaz]

The Canadian healthcare system isn't money driven of course because it is "free".

In a sense, it is free. Its already paid for out the taxes Canadians pay, we don't have to pay up front to the hospital and so people are "free" from worry of paying the bill right there and then when leaving the hospital. I'm all for public and private but public has to be ahead of private when a doctor has patiences of both plans.

[Pliny]

In a sense, it is free. Its already paid for out the taxes Canadians pay, we don't have to pay up front to the hospital and so people are "free" from worry of paying the bill right there and then when leaving the hospital. I'm all for public and private but public has to be ahead of private when a doctor has patiences of both plans.

The point I make is that it isn't "money-driven" since it is free.

[kuzadd]

money in this post is clearly profit driven, pliny did you watch the videos?

The ideology of private for profit medicine as being more efficient and cost effective, is just that an ideology, backed by no facts, and ideology = religion, fanatical belief in stories, unsubstantiated stories.

There is absolutely zero proof that profit driven medicine, will be more efficient or cost effective then non-profit single payer health care.

Watch the video, then read this

Were number 37! The US. With the highest healthcare costs

The ideology of privatization, just looking at the privatization of warfare indicates no savings, no efficiency increase, but lots of rampant corruption.

Certainly not an improvement

[Sir Bandelot]

Its very hard for people to accept this fact, after years f being brainwashed by capitalist slogans that socialism -any kind of socialism- is outright evil. Only to have to wake up one day to the news, guess what, its unrestricted capitalism thats the problem, and we need a little socialism now, to help get us out of this!

"Gawd, the end times must be a comin..! They want us to worship their evil godless socialism, to make us into their money-slaves!"

Wake up you fool, you already are one Only the bank is your master...

[GostHacked]

The point I make is that it isn't "money-driven" since it is free.

It's far from free, simply because you pay taxes like the rest of us Canadians to support the health care system.

[Riverwind]

Especially for those who 'believe' like a religion that private care is going to improve care.

Private care does improve care for those that can afford it. However, the private insurance and government insurance suffer from the same problem: what is good for the insurer is not necessarily good for the patient. The only difference is the way in which patients are sacrificed in order to protect the interests of the insurer. In the Canadian system governments ration access to certain types of non-essential procedures while they make it illegal for people who need the procedures to pay for them with their own money. In a private system the rationing is done through various limits and exclusions written into insurance policies but people at least have the option of paying for excluded procedures themselves if they can afford it.

The Canadian system also encourages healthcare providers to overcharge for their services via inflated union wage scales and/or benefit packages. I see no difference between a corporation charging insurance companies for unneeded tests and a union demanding excessive (when compared to the private sector) pay/benefit packages. In both cases the cost to the insurer goes up and the patients lose. In both cases, the beneficiaries are motivated by greed and feel they are entitled to what they get.

[Griz]

The Canadian healthcare system isn't money driven of course because it is "free".

I find this comment amazing considering aboriginal people get everything "free." Everybody complains that aboriginal people get free education yet diddly is mentioned about the first 12 years of public school as being "free." Awhile back I asked some posters to define what free is and they couldn't respond. When you factor in all the crap aboriginal people take for being the first one here and all the supposed benefits, aboriginal people have paid dearly

[Griz]

I find this comment amazing considering aboriginal people "supposedly" get everything "free." Everybody complains that aboriginal people get free education yet "diddly" is mentioned about the first 12 years of public school as being "free" for the general population. Awhile back I asked some posters to define what they mean by free and they couldn't respond. When you factor in all the crap aboriginal people take for being the first ones here and all the supposed benefits, aboriginal people have paid dearly

Edited September 16, 2009 by Griz

[Oleg Bach]

Could you imagine Jesus the Christ wandering about healing people..but before you got the majic touch you had to dump your life savings into a bag he carried..and maybe liquidate your assets and sell your house...wtf! Christ did that - not a lot has changed since the advent of the corporation...seeing Jesus was the first chair of the board way back then.

[kuzadd]

The Canadian system also encourages healthcare providers to overcharge for their services via inflated union wage scales and/or benefit packages. I see no difference between a corporation charging insurance companies for unneeded tests and a union demanding excessive (when compared to the private sector) pay/benefit packages. In both cases the cost to the insurer goes up and the patients lose. In both cases, the beneficiaries are motivated by greed and feel they are entitled to what they get.

this is just utter nonsense.

Any clue what a doctor makes, especially a specialist US vs Canada.

You see no difference between a worker making a better wage, vs and insurance company sucking money from the system.

clue: who's money is more productive in the economy, the worker? or the insurance company?

And if you still don't get it, look around at our economy, the most recent economic crisis, maybe you'll get it?

I do not think you fully grasp the costs of the US system vs the Canadian.

Watch the video I posted

[kuzadd]

Its very hard for people to accept this fact, after years f being brainwashed by capitalist slogans that socialism -any kind of socialism- is outright evil. Only to have to wake up one day to the news, guess what, its unrestricted capitalism thats the problem, and we need a little socialism now, to help get us out of this!

"Gawd, the end times must be a comin..! They want us to worship their evil godless socialism, to make us into their money-slaves!"

Wake up you fool, you already are one Only the bank is your master...

How many people just don't get that bandelot, how many????

[Riverwind]

Any clue what a doctor makes, especially a specialist US vs Canada.

Any clue on how much a doctor has to pay for the education in the US that allows him/her to work as a specialist?

You see no difference between a worker making a better wage, vs and insurance company sucking money from the system.

There is absolutely no difference. Greed is greed. A union worker who uses the government monopoly over healthcare as a lever to extort rediculous pay and benefit packages is a leech sucking money from the system.

clue: who's money is more productive in the economy, the worker? or the insurance company?

Insurance companies provide a necessary service. Without them illness and injury would sideline many productive workers.

I do not think you fully grasp the costs of the US system vs the Canadian.

The US system costs more for a number of reasons. An out of control legal system that has made liability insurance extremely expensive (new doctors can expect to pay 100K/year just for liability insurance!). This threat of liability forces doctors to conduct tests that may be unnecessary. In Canada, it is not the doctor's responsibility if it takes 6 months to get a test for cancer and patients have no recourse if they end up dead because of government rationing of healthcare.

Now you can argue that government rationing of healthcare is a necessary evil in order to keep costs under control. But you can't do that without first acknowledging that this rationing is happening and people do suffer as a result.

[kuzadd]

riverwind:

you make no sense at all. there is a huge difference between an insurance company sucking exorbitant rates and people making a living wage.

Clearly you are so out of touch with this most recent economic crisis... I can't even waste the time to discuss this.

But here is a big clue, it was brought on NOT by people making living wages.

have you watched the video? of course not. Because you already know everything there is to know, right?

still the fact is the private for profit system is not more efficient, nor more cost effective.

Along with the rationing of care that is included in both systems, there are also the millions and millions who have no hope of any care, which is the cause of an additional burden to society.

But better to serve an elitist agenda then to even serve yourself.

oh and one more thing

"Insurance companies provide a necessary service. Without them illness and injury would sideline many productive workers."

This is laughable. This shows a level of naievete, I can't even begin to comprehend.

It is the very insurance companies themselves that drive up the costs of healthcare making the premiums so unaffordable in a private system.

They are nothing but middlemen, who extract a high fee.

Edited September 16, 2009 by kuzadd

[Riverwind]

you make no sense at all. there is a huge difference between an insurance company sucking exorbitant rates and people making a living wage.

Nonsense. In most cases insurance companies in the are not hugely profitable and the rates they charge are what is necessary to cover the cost of services. OTOH, the wages/benefit packages demanded by healthcare unions are completely out of line with what similar workers would get in private industry which makes them leeches sucking money out of the system no matter how you want to spin it.

Along with the rationing of care that is included in both systems, there are also the millions and millions who have no hope of any care, which is the cause of an additional burden to society.

This is ultimately my point. The only way to control healthcare costs is to deny care. You can play around with the mechanisms used to deny care (i.e. insurance contracts vs. waiting lists) it ultimately it becomes a question of who gets screwed.

This is laughable. This shows a level of naievete, I can't even begin to comprehend.

You really don't know much about economics do you?

They are nothing but middlemen, who extract a high fee.

More ignorance. Our society would quickly grind to a halt without the the various 'middlemen' who provide specialized services for a fee. Edited September 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

actually riverwind, it is you that doesn't know much about economics?

watched the video yet?

Insurance companies are not hugely profitable?

nonsense. typical unsubstaniated rhetoric.

If they weren't profitable, they wouldn't be in the business of insurance.

watch the video

oh and this

. Our society would quickly grind to a halt without the the various 'middlemen' who provide specialized services for a fee.

no it wouldn't. unsubstantiated statement

Do you just pull this nonsense out of a hat?

Edited September 16, 2009 by kuzadd

[M.Dancer]

no it wouldn't. unsubstantiated statement

Do you just pull this nonsense out of a hat?

Actually it has been substantiated in one of the largest economic labratories in the world.

The Soviet Union.

[Riverwind]

Insurance companies are not hugely profitable?

Not when compared to other companies:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health...anks-86-by.html

I realize that economic illiterates like yourself get confused by big numbers and assume that $billion in revenue is the same as being "highly profitable".

If they weren't profitable, they wouldn't be in the business of insurance.

There is nothing wrong with making a profit. It is the corporate equivalent of "making a living wage".

no it wouldn't. unsubstantiated statement

Really? So explain to me how our economy could function without "fee extracting middlemen" like grocery stores? Edited September 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Sir Bandelot]

The problem with the business model is that they need to make more money each year, in order to be successful. So in other words, making a billion in profit this year is simply not good enough, they must make more than that next year, and so on. Otherwise there is no "growth". This is not about sustainability, but continued growth.

Second thing is that, if it turns a profit under the public system, the money is returned to the people, who are effectively 'shareholders". We need a system where the profit is returned to the people. Competition for control of these industries is between the government and private ownership, in other words, the wealthy elite.

[Riverwind]

The problem with the business model is that they need to make more money each year, in order to be successful.

Gee. Sounds like a typical union demand - last years wages aren't good enough - they have to increase each year otherwise the members fall behind.

So in other words, making a billion in profit this year is simply not good enough, they must make more than that next year, and so on. Otherwise there is no "growth". This is not about sustainability, but continued growth.

Our entire economy depends on growth. In fact, the government debt that we are piling on now depends on growth to pay it off. Without growth the government deficits would suffocate the economy.

Second thing is that, if it turns a profit under the public system, the money is returned to the people, who are effectively 'shareholders".

A nonsense argument since the "people" are share holders in private insurance corporations too. You might argue that the profits from insurance companies are not distributed evenly but neither are the "profits" from public health care which tend to be distributed disproportionately public sector union members.

We need a system where the profit is returned to the people.

The USSR and China tried that model. It was an economic disaster that led to the collapse of the USSR and had been completely disowned in China.

[Sir Bandelot]

Our entire economy depends on growth. In fact, the government debt that we are piling on now depends on growth to pay it off. Without growth the government deficits would suffocate the economy.

Right genius, but that should not be how we run health care. And in generalm thats how we do it in Canada and the UK. I'm saying, the profit motive is in conflict with that.

A nonsense argument since the "people" are share holders in private insurance corporations too. You might argue that the profits from insurance companies are not distributed evenly but neither are the "profits" from public health care which tend to be distributed disproportionately public sector union members.

It's not at all the same thing. You missed the point again... in a public system the money stays in the system, its not paid out as a profit at the year end.

The USSR and China tried that model. It was an economic disaster that led to the collapse of the USSR and had been completely disowned in China.

Canada and the UK use that model now, although its eroded in Canada by capitalist influence, which is part of its problem now. What country do you live in?

[GostHacked]

The USSR and China tried that model. It was an economic disaster that led to the collapse of the USSR and had been completely disowned in China.

I can't say for China, but the USSR tried to outspend the US during the cold war. USSR went broke trying to pay for it all.

[kuzadd]

The problem with the business model is that they need to make more money each year, in order to be successful. So in other words, making a billion in profit this year is simply not good enough, they must make more than that next year, and so on. Otherwise there is no "growth". This is not about sustainability, but continued growth.

Second thing is that, if it turns a profit under the public system, the money is returned to the people, who are effectively 'shareholders". We need a system where the profit is returned to the people. Competition for control of these industries is between the government and private ownership, in other words, the wealthy elite.

thank god someone with a brain and non delusional!

Endless growth is unsustainable, it is not possible, for a number of reasons.

We are getting a glimpse of that now, and have several glimpses of it historically.

Endless growth is limited by the means of the consumer. The ability to pay.

Therfore sustainability of the sytem is ideal.

Buy keeping profit angle out of the issue, it is more likely we can sustain an affordable health care system.

And, there is zero indication that a for profit system is more efficient or brings down costs.

I do not understand the idealogues around this issue.

Particularly the so called 'conservatives' who by their very nature should support the single payer system, because it is the most cost effective, the most efficient , the most conservative.

But then conservatism ain't what it used to be!

[kuzadd]

I can't say for China, but the USSR tried to outspend the US during the cold war. USSR went broke trying to pay for it all.

The arms race was what caused the USSR to go broke.

Just as the arms race now is causing the USA to go broke.