President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

And it's easier to see progress in the culture war issues. Either that person can serve in the military or they can't. I don't know if we'd know what an optimal healthcare system would look like even if we stumbled into the solution.

 

Liberal millennials care about health care because it's the thing to care about right now.

But if ACA is overturned and they're given the option to bail on personal health insurance, whaddya think they're gonna do? You already know. Wouldn't you?

Let's say you can't have both. Let's say, for a minute, it's binary. (I know it doesn't have to be, but still.) Which is more important? Health care or LGBT discrimination?

Because, in politics, if you wanna win anything, eventually you gotta make some choices. It can't all be a morality play. Those midwestern pipelines that Shailene Woodley's all worked up about? Those are jobs that put food on families' tables.

So what would liberal progressives be willing to sacrifice? What are their priorities? It can't be "all or go fuck yourself, you racist, sexist, xenophobic, environment-ruining asshole." So, what is it?

What I can tell you is, at the local, state and Congressional level, Dems have lost so many elections, in an era where gay marriage became law from a Republican-controlled Supreme Court! What I can also tell you is there's a sense, among some liberal progressives, that it's worse than ever for women, minorities, undocumented immigrants and the LGBT community. The lack of perspective and the strength of certitude that progressives are right about everything in culture has an effect on elections. A bad one.

 

Well, I've used hospitals on both sides of the border, and the people who worked there sure as shit decided on my treatment.

 

I disagree here. I'm not saying that there are not unnecessary procedures done based on the profit motive. Fee for Service practice drives that to some degree.

I bet such costs are about 5% of the costs of tests and procedures which are done in order to cover a doctor's ass against a malpractice suit three years down the line. No matter how clear cut the diagnosis is, such tests *will* be done, because there is nothing a physician fears more than some smartass lawyer in a deposition saying "But doctor, isn't the normal procedure to get a CT to confirm that diagnosis? Why did you not do that? It would have revealed that your assessment was incorrect, wouldn't it?". Nevermind that the lawyer has the benefit of hindsight and every bit of information presented pointed to the doctor's diagnosis. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while. It's one thing if it was a badly flawed or reckless diagnosis, quite another if everything pointed to it being correct. Everything gets double and triple checked... which costs money. And yes, I'd want my doc to be right too, but it's still a huge money sink.

You would not believe the number of tests that are purely CYA. Tort reform is needed. I'm not saying we should go back to the only way to sue for malpractice is if the local AMA agrees that the doctor deserves it, that was badly abused to cover for bad doctors, but the number of lawsuits and the payouts are excessive.

 

Don't hospitals own more and more practices?

My buddy's cardiology practice recently sold to a hospital. (He was against. Wasn't looking to be someone's employee.)

My daughter's doctors were employed by the hospital, and her first pediatrician's practice had recently been purchased by the hospital.

 

Are "the people who worked there" necessarily employees of the hospital?

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think most people still think of doctors as experts and hold them in high esteem. If someone in a position of trust and authority tells you that you need this treatment or test, otherwise you will get sicker or even die, you're probably going to go along with it.

 

Your health is not a car. Your health is not a car. Your health is not a car.

There are hundreds of mechanics in a medium-sized city, and that doesn't count the dude down the street who's a lawyer and really loves and knows cars.

In that same city, there might be 2-3 hospitals.

You can see 3 mechanics in a week and get an assessment.

Try doing that with 3 doctors and getting any kind of answer within that timeframe.

It. Is Not. The Same.

At least acknowledge the uniqueness that goes into one's health. If a car is totaled, you get a new car. If your body is, you're telling people goodbye for the last time.

Death is different than a faulty transmission.

 

I really don't understand the comparison of healthcare to any other business.

 

When Kushner and Ivanka and the rest of the administration are looking for legal representation are they looking for the lowest cost provider? Are they asking that certain motions not be filed cost10's of thousands to prepare and argue because the likelihood of success is small?

Why should medical care be any different? Getting the lowest cost provider almost always means least qualified provider and or low levels of service. You get what you pay for, should a pediatric cancer patient be relegated to the cheapest oncologist and treatment solely because that's all trump care might cover?

 

As to hospitals buying clinical practices, that's not about finding a way to do unneeded procedures. It's about referring every patient possible to the associated hospital so they get the business and the insurance dollars.