Discussion about hot topics trending today

[mad_gater]

That is true, but I still believe that a lot of medical care would still be a bit beyond the capabilities of most Americans outside of common primary healthcare things. And while other procedures and treatments would be a lot cheaper, they'd still be a bit heavy in the money department for working class/lower middle class Americans.



That's how hospitals offset the cost of emergency treatments and such from individuals who can't pay...in part. The other part is a result of shenanigans.



The "employ" free market naturally leads to that. Unions just sped up the process.



But employer based healthcare isn't free...you lose a significant part of your pay for it....



Oh dear Lord have mercy....




Don't get me wrong here. I do believe that Yale and Harvard should cost more than the community college down the street. They do provide a level of workload that the average human can't handle, they really are top notch. That said, there are private schools that just aren't worth it.

State universities have programs just as good as local private universities at a fraction of the price. It's quite simple, if you are going in for nursing or teaching, there really is no point (depending on the state you are in) in spending 50K a year on a private school. The 8K a year public University probably has just as good a program at a fraction of the price. Now if you want to be a lawyer with ambition....that 50K a year university might not even cut it.

However those universities still charge way more than they really need to.




Beyond the extremely atrocious moral and ethical issues that would pose, it is also a horrible idea to have a segment of the population dropping like flies. I didn't think this needed saying though but I will say it. Doing as you propose is immoral and wrong on so many levels.



Having a long line to wait in is better than having no line to wait in in the first place. That said, I have mentioned how I would prefer a basic universal coverage scheme with private packages much in the way GF refered to regarding the Australian system. Every one gets the most common killers covered, but can buy personalized packages and stuff beyond the essentials. The basic basket coverege would not barr you from seeing any doctor of your choice (or if ti has to, private packages would be cheap enough to be more feasible to give you that choice).

I don't pretend to say that the systems in several nations are perfect, but when compared to our system, they are preferable. Medical care in Mexico is cheaper and the lines are shorter...but can you honestly tell me that they have a top notch super healthcare system? Don't get me wrong, the doctors know what they are doing down there, and they have good technology and such. It's just that...well...the locals can't always afford their services the way we could. So funny you mention Brits and Canadians coming to the US for treatment. That's nice, the only problem is that we can't afford that treatment that those foreigners get!

well I think I said before that before these insurers and HMO's came along that we could afford to pay out of pocket for routine things like physicals and stuff and only needed to take out insurance for catastrophic care

[Gatecat]

Darn it, if only medical care wasn't a basic human right.

Well, that's the core of the issue, isn't it. Some believe it is, some do not.

Don't you know? Americans have no right to human rights... it's not in the constitution.

[Gatefan1976]

Don't you know? Americans have no right to human rights... it's not in the constitution.

Don't be stupid gatecat, they have GUNZ!!!

[garhkal]

Darn it, if only medical care wasn't a basic human right.

And where exactly is that stated? Not in the US constitution;..

So, the poor can just go off and die then?
Ok.

Before Reagan made it a law that hospitals couldn't refuse anyone, where exactly did all the poor go back then? Did millions just go off and die cause they couldn't afford it?? Certainly not to my knowledge..

I don't know about the NHS outright refusing to treat people, I don't think they legally could. Yes, the waiting lines can be long, which is why you have private and public health insurance. I have medicare, but I also have private insurance as well in case something happens that the public sector may take too long to deal with, or I want more choice in.

They don't outright refuse service though, they do it in essence, bY continually kicking you BACK to the end of the line..

[Gatefan1976]

And where exactly is that stated? Not in the US constitution;..

All the time you served in the military is not covered by the US constitution, nor anything stemming from that service, including tri-care, or any other related service.
Stop mooching off your constitutionally illegal service.

Before Reagan made it a law that hospitals couldn't refuse anyone, where exactly did all the poor go back then? Did millions just go off and die cause they couldn't afford it?? Certainly not to my knowledge..

Your knowledge is.......... lacking.

They don't outright refuse service though, they do it in essence, bY continually kicking you BACK to the end of the line..

That would be illegal, and people should sue.

[pookey]

I happen to like the NHS, whenever I have needed to go I have got in fast, it has been efficient and any family members have had the same experience, they even sent my brother to a private hospital to have an op, he didnt have to pay a dime.

Some may go abroad to have things done as it can be cheaper and no waiting, especially dental treatment, and GF is right, when people do come to America for ops, they do pay the full price for it, so they are not scrounging off of the USA.

[Gatefan1976]

I happen to like the NHS, whenever I have needed to go I have got in fast, it has been efficient and any family members have had the same experience, they even sent my brother to a private hospital to have an op, he didnt have to pay a dime.

Yes, I like Medicare as well, but I do not doubt that people in need have got screwed by it. It's the balancing act, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one..........
Until the One is my mate, or my wife, or my child, or my starship crewmember

Some may go abroad to have things done as it can be cheaper and no waiting, especially dental treatment, and GF is right, when people do come to America for ops, they do pay the full price for it, so they are not scrounging off of the USA.

Dental is a huge flaw in a public system because it is viewed as -cosmetic-, not needed.
Give a speech with crap teeth, and tell me it's just cosmetic.

[pookey]

True but its not cosmetic if your tooth is broken to the point of cutting your mouth to bits or you are in pain. And the dentists say you have to go every 6 months i think it is, another scam to get money from you regularly? If you don't you are turfed off of the list. I remember turning up for an appointment, the receptionist said, 'Sorry, the dentist is not coming in today, didn't no one phone you?' I was stood in front of her, what a stupid question, so i lost an hour at work, and because i didn't make another appointment I was taken off of the books Now, if I had not cancelled any appointment I make, they would have tried to charge me for it.

[Gatecat]

Don't be stupid gatecat, they have GUNZ!!!

Ah, guns, of course they are more important than proper healthcare.


Every Austrian in the eastern parts has at least two dentists: an Austrian for the minor things mostly paid by insurances... and a Hungarian one for the bigger ops like implants, bridges and the likes. They are better at those things like the Austrians and two thirds cheaper.
I love my Hungarian dentist, she's great.

[pookey]

Did she do your wraithy teeth, cause i would question her skills






*Runs off*

[Womble]

And why is that? Why are companies no longer rewarding loyalty to them?

Because companies, being for-profit, are chasing the bottom line. And sometimes they trip over it.

Modern-day economy has a different structure than once upon a time. Some in the business world get it, some don't. The companies are chasing not just revenue, but stock market value, and that leads to a lot of shoot-yourself-in-foot decisions, when employers look at per-hour or monthly pay and not at total cost of employees.

Let me give you an example close to home. My home, that is. We are having a terrible season at my travel agency due to terrible decisions by higher management, fundamental problem being that we are woefully understaffed and an attempt to outsource our work to an outside company that specialized in setting up call centers has gone seriously awry. I've very nearly gotten myself fired by relentlessly pestering my higher-ups to begin to remedy the situation, but apparently we have no resources to do so.

Here's how it went. Our department was up until November run as a professional department, not as a run-of-the-mill call center. Outside impression of service suffered somewhat but job got done. Most of our people worked with us for two-three seasons, had experience and did not require re-training, only some adjustment whenever things shifted. We had a really capable team because of good employee retention. We got a new customer service chief though, someone poached from a major mobile communications provider for a lot of money, and she decided she would run us as a super-efficient, service-focused call center like the one she helped set up for that mobile communications company. My old boss, a universally respected industry veteran, got fired, his right-hand supervisor demoted to handling statistics. The new dept. boss hasn't worked as a travel agent for a single day, but he is a real smooth-talker and service-minded and all that. I have the most knowledge and experience after my old boss, so everyone expected me to be the new supervisor; instead I was bypassed for promotion and they appointed a girl who has been with us for one season and is still learning the basics. Apparently she has good people skills which is what a supervisor needs. They hired only two new people this season for our department, and instead contracted an outside company to set up a second call center in the north of the country employing mainly Arabs from the unemployment-plagued villages in the Galilee.

It took me a while to realize that it was all about cost cutting. High employee turnover means lower salaries, hence the average "life span" of 3 years for a call center employee. They become too expensive otherwise. Outsourced workers from economically unfortunate areas will work for even less than novice employees in Tel Aviv AND because they are not "proper" employees, my agency is free from the obligations regarding their healthcare, pension funds etc. Plus any company that announces wage increase for its employees, sees its share price plunge, and any companies announcing budget tightening sees its shares rise. The way our CEOs see it, it's a win-win.

Until it's not.

Here's how it's playing out in real life. I was angry for being bypassed for promotion (and lied to), so I've nearly quit. My new boss and his newer-still supervisor could not afford to let me leave, because I am currently the most experienced professional we have after my old boss who got fired. To persuade me to stay, they've given me a higher pay than a supervisor's, and a kind of hybrid made-for-me position in which I have most of the de-facto authority of a supervisor without the responsibilities. AND they still have the supervisor girl's salary to pay. So now I actually cost my company a good deal more than I would have had they promoted me. Two of our employees have quit at the start of the season- one new guy, one experienced - so we're back down to winter staff which is woefully inadequate for summer. And the biggest flop was, of course, with the outsourcing. The contractors started off to big fanfare with a workforce of 25 people. They are now down to 9, and those get constantly replaced by newcomers as burned-out people quit one after another. Training new people mid-season, especially training a new one every few weeks, is vostly and it's a complete productivity disaster. So yes, they are paid less per-hour and monthly, but they cost a hell of a lot more than do our veteran employees. Not to mention that every week I find myself having to fix the costs of their inexperience; last week, a single email that wasn't sent in a timely manner nearly cost us $900.

The end result of all that cost-cutting? Our department is already over the season's budget, two months before the season's end, and our head of customer service has to beg the high management for additional funds. Our customers' waiting times are unprecedentedly long, we are taking a tremendous beating in customer satisfaction polls, and we are bleeding money because, being understaffed, we can't handle all the incoming requests in a timely manner so every once in a while something falls through the cracks and we absorb thousands of dollars of damage.

I am not convinced that they'll learn from it though. Shareholders will decide, not us and not even our bosses.

[Gatefan1976]

Because companies, being for-profit, are chasing the bottom line. And sometimes they trip over it.

Amen.

Modern-day economy has a different structure than once upon a time. Some in the business world get it, some don't. The companies are chasing not just revenue, but stock market value, and that leads to a lot of shoot-yourself-in-foot decisions, when employers look at per-hour or monthly pay and not at total cost of employees.

Ahh yes, the impact of the stock market on companies, the actual bane of employee's across the world.

Let me give you an example close to home. My home, that is. We are having a terrible season at my travel agency due to terrible decisions by higher management, fundamental problem being that we are woefully understaffed and an attempt to outsource our work to an outside company that specialized in setting up call centers has gone seriously awry. I've very nearly gotten myself fired by relentlessly pestering my higher-ups to begin to remedy the situation, but apparently we have no resources to do so.

I do the same thing, and have got called into the office for it on more than one occasion. I even told my boss that they would have a full on staffing revolt, lead by me if they continued to act the way they do.

Here's how it went. Our department was up until November run as a professional department, not as a run-of-the-mill call center. Outside impression of service suffered somewhat but job got done. Most of our people worked with us for two-three seasons, had experience and did not require re-training, only some adjustment whenever things shifted. We had a really capable team because of good employee retention. We got a new customer service chief though, someone poached from a major mobile communications provider for a lot of money, and she decided she would run us as a super-efficient, service-focused call center like the one she helped set up for that mobile communications company. My old boss, a universally respected industry veteran, got fired, his right-hand supervisor demoted to handling statistics.

In other words, she broke what did not need fixing.

The new dept. boss hasn't worked as a travel agent for a single day, but he is a real smooth-talker and service-minded and all that. I have the most knowledge and experience after my old boss, so everyone expected me to be the new supervisor; instead I was bypassed for promotion and they appointed a girl who has been with us for one season and is still learning the basics. Apparently she has good people skills which is what a supervisor needs. They hired only two new people this season for our department, and instead contracted an outside company to set up a second call center in the north of the country employing mainly Arabs from the unemployment-plagued villages in the Galilee.

I can imagine you took that in several ways.

It took me a while to realize that it was all about cost cutting. High employee turnover means lower salaries, hence the average "life span" of 3 years for a call center employee. They become too expensive otherwise. Outsourced workers from economically unfortunate areas will work for even less than novice employees in Tel Aviv AND because they are not "proper" employees, my agency is free from the obligations regarding their healthcare, pension funds etc. Plus any company that announces wage increase for its employees, sees its share price plunge, and any companies announcing budget tightening sees its shares rise. The way our CEOs see it, it's a win-win.

And, as someone on the front-line, you know better.

Until it's not.

Yup

Here's how it's playing out in real life. I was angry for being bypassed for promotion (and lied to), so I've nearly quit. My new boss and his newer-still supervisor could not afford to let me leave, because I am currently the most experienced professional we have after my old boss who got fired. To persuade me to stay, they've given me a higher pay than a supervisor's, and a kind of hybrid made-for-me position in which I have most of the de-facto authority of a supervisor without the responsibilities. AND they still have the supervisor girl's salary to pay. So now I actually cost my company a good deal more than I would have had they promoted me. Two of our employees have quit at the start of the season- one new guy, one experienced - so we're back down to winter staff which is woefully inadequate for summer. And the biggest flop was, of course, with the outsourcing. The contractors started off to big fanfare with a workforce of 25 people. They are now down to 9, and those get constantly replaced by newcomers as burned-out people quit one after another. Training new people mid-season, especially training a new one every few weeks, is vostly and it's a complete productivity disaster. So yes, they are paid less per-hour and monthly, but they cost a hell of a lot more than do our veteran employees. Not to mention that every week I find myself having to fix the costs of their inexperience; last week, a single email that wasn't sent in a timely manner nearly cost us $900.

But, but, I give you people and time, they are the same as experience, right? The newb I put on staff with zero training is just as good as the person with years of experience, because they cost sorta the same.......
right?
right?
That's what my shareholders say............

The end result of all that cost-cutting? Our department is already over the season's budget, two months before the season's end, and our head of customer service has to beg the high management for additional funds. Our customers' waiting times are unprecedentedly long, we are taking a tremendous beating in customer satisfaction polls, and we are bleeding money because, being understaffed, we can't handle all the incoming requests in a timely manner so every once in a while something falls through the cracks and we absorb thousands of dollars of damage.

I am not convinced that they'll learn from it though. Shareholders will decide, not us and not even our bosses.

They won't, not until someone higher up actually cops it themselves.

[mad_gater]

Amen.

Ahh yes, the impact of the stock market on companies, the actual bane of employee's across the world.

I do the same thing, and have got called into the office for it on more than one occasion. I even told my boss that they would have a full on staffing revolt, lead by me if they continued to act the way they do.

In other words, she broke what did not need fixing.

I can imagine you took that in several ways.

And, as someone on the front-line, you know better.

Yup

But, but, I give you people and time, they are the same as experience, right? The newb I put on staff with zero training is just as good as the person with years of experience, because they cost sorta the same.......
right?
right?
That's what my shareholders say............

They won't, not until someone higher up actually cops it themselves.

probably also partof the reason I got fired from subway....was sick of them leaving us by ourselves, sometimes even during lunch rush and wasn't shy about telling people all and sundry about their inability to properly staff the place

[Falcon Horus]

Don't you know? Americans have no right to human rights... it's not in the constitution.

Yeah, that is true.

I'm not kidding here. They have no right to the economic, social, and cultural rights guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

They have no right to education, an adequate standard of living including food, shelter, and medical care.

The US is even more backward than I thought.

I give you the Major International Treaties the U.S. Has NOT Ratified

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights • (1966) Part of the International Bill of Human Rights, this is the only covenant that requires governments to promote and protect such rights as health, education, social protection, and an adequate standard of living for all people. The ICESCR has been ratified by more than 150 countries. President Carter signed the Covenant in 1977, but the United States has yet to ratify it.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women • (1979) The most comprehensive and detailed international agreement that seeks the advancement of women, CEDAW has been ratified by 185 countries. Although President Carter signed CEDAW in 1980, today the United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified the treaty.

Convention on the Rights of the Child • (1989) Protecting children from physical and mental abuse and hazardous work, and giving children the right to free primary education, the CRC has been ratified by 193 countries, making it one of the most widely adopted conventions. President Clinton signed the CRC in 1995 but the United States has yet to ratify it, one of only two countries in the world not to do so.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court • (1998) The ICC conducts trials of individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when there is no other recourse for justice. 146 countries have signed the ICC, including the United States. In 2002, President Bush stated that the United States did not intend to be bound by its signature to the Rome Statute and that it had no intention of ratifying it.

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families • (1990) The Migrant Workers Convention protects migrant workers and their families from abuse and inhumane treatment in the countries where they work. No industrialized, migrant-receiving country, including the United States, has signed this treaty.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities • (2006) The CRPD is the first global convention that specifically addresses the human rights of persons with disabilities. President Obama signed the treaty in 2009, but the United States has yet to ratify it.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance • (2006) This Convention affirms that enforced disappearances constitute a crime against humanity when practiced in a widespread or systematic manner. The United States has not yet signed this treaty.

And where exactly is that stated? Not in the US constitution.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed but never ratified so you can consider yourself a privileged white boy who got an education he has no right to, healthcare he has no right to, adequate living standard he has no right to.

Before Reagan made it a law that hospitals couldn't refuse anyone, where exactly did all the poor go back then? Did millions just go off and die cause they couldn't afford it?? Certainly not to my knowledge.

Well, you only read what you already agree with so I guess that's no surprise.

Here go, read something that might up that knowledge a little:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA): what it is and what it means for physicians

"[...]

In 1986 and 1987, 2 articles appeared in the literature by physicians from Cook County Hospital in Chicago detailing the extent of patient dumping to that facility. The authors defined dumping as “the denial of or limitation in the provision of medical services to a patient for economic reasons and the referral of that patient elsewhere”. The majority of such transfers to Cook County Hospital involved patients who were minorities and unemployed. The reason given for the transfer by the sending institution was lack of insurance in 87% of the cases. Only 6% of the patients had given written informed consent for their transfer. Medical service patients who were transferred were twice as likely to die as those treated at the transferring hospital, and 24% of the patients were considered to have been transferred in an unstable condition. It was concluded that this practice was done primarily for financial reasons and that it delayed care and jeopardized the patient's health. This practice was not limited to Chicago but occurred in most large cities with public hospitals. In Dallas, such transfers increased from 70 per month in 1982 to more than 200 per month in 1983."

Here's what the law does:

EMTALA imposes 3 distinct legal duties on hospitals. According to the statute, only facilities that participate in Medicare are included, but this encompasses almost 98% of all US hospitals. First, hospitals must perform a medical screening examination (MSE) on any person who comes to the hospital and requests care to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Second, if an EMC exists, hospital staff must either stabilize that condition to the extent of their ability or transfer the patient to another hospital with the appropriate capabilities. Finally, hospitals with specialized capabilities or facilities (e.g., burn units) are required to accept transfers of patients in need of such specialized services if they have the capacity to treat them.

[...]

Furthermore, the law prohibits any participating hospital from delaying such screening examination or further care “in order to inquire about the individual's method of payment or insurance status”.

Let's have a few fun facts about the USA:

* Compared to the 34 nations of the OECD, the United States had the third highest rate of infant mortality (behind Turkey and Mexico), 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people (lower than the OECD average of 3.1), and an average life expectancy of 78.7 (lower than the OECD average of 80.1 years).

* In 2012 US health care spending totaled $2.8 trillion dollars and accounted for 17.2% of the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The average annual cost of health care for the typical US family of four was over $20,000, and health care costs that year rose at double the rate of inflation.

* In 1938, health care reform to provide universal coverage was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as an extension of social security, and US Surgeon General Thomas Parran argued that "equal opportunity for health is a basic American right." In Feb. 1939, Senator Robert Wagner (D-NY) introduced the National Health Care Act of 1939 which would have implemented a national health care system, however, the bill did not gain the necessary support in Congress and died in committee.

Here's another great article which appeared in the American Journal of Public Health:
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

"“The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured, even after taking into account socioeconomics, health behaviors, and baseline health,” said lead author Andrew Wilper, M.D., who currently teaches at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”"

[mad_gater]

I imagine the premise would be that a lot of those treaties and conventions and whatnot would've nullified US sovereignty over our own affairs. And you kno how we here in the US hate to surrender sovereignty to foreign powers.