Are healthcare providers scapegoats?

Question

I just looked this up

Aetna Cigna United Healthcare
Revenue 25.61B 16.91B 73B
Gross Profit 9.84B 16.55B 17.64B
EBITDA 3.16B 2.08B 7.97B
PROFIT 1.73B 1.08B 4.2B

So three carriers in this country made 7 billion in profit last year. Should healthcare be big business and if you can't afford it then go off and die. It really makes you wonder about humanity. I am not for government controlled healthcare however I think the system is broken and needs some kind of fix.

So dead marxist. If you saw a five year old girl who was suffering from some disorder that could save her life but she could not afford the surgery then you would be willing to tell her to go off somewhere and die. Profit is more important then human life?

I know several doctors personally and their motivation for becoming doctors was not money. I don't think you could make it throught he rigors of becoming a MD if your motives are pure profit. They are being squeezed by the same companies that are squeezing the consumers. How can a company report 8 billion in profit and deny a procedure to someone who is going to die.

Mary maybe you are right. However for some reason I think National Healthcare would just become a government boondongle with more waste and more regulation then we have already. Maybe it is the answer.

Answer 1

Doctors are businessmen

They didn't attend 8 years of medical school to be purveyors of charity

EDIT: Many doctors preform surgeries, operations and proceedures pro-bono (that means "for free" by the way).
They should continue to do so, and I applaud their efforts. But charity should always come form the heart, and NOT be forced by a government bayonette.

Answer 2

The system is most definately broken. The answer will have to be a very creative one because national health is not the answer. There is no such thing as "free" healthcare. The national health systems in most if not all countries mentioned above prove that national health won't work in the US. It is largely inefficient and ineffective. The size of a national program would prove to be unmanageable. There are long waiting times for many many procedures in Canada and the population is smaller than that of California. In the UK, many who can afford it opt to buy supplimental health insurance and the ability to see a private doctor and the population is 80% smaller than the US. Poland (similar in population to California) and Sweden (about 1 mil. more people than NYC) are largely homogeneous populations which tends to mean a similarity in general way of thinking. The lack of diversity would put less of a strain on a national system. These are all practical reasons to consider when pondering a national system. Comparing Sweden's national health to should happen in the US is like comparing apples and oysters.
I for one would rather have the system here than wind up in a hospital in Russia. I'm sure there are some fine hospitals in Russia, but I think I'll pass.
The reasons health care is expensive here are many fold. The care given in **most** cases far exceeds that available anywhere in the world. The system is over used by those who can afford it, and those who cannot wind up over-using emergency rooms. Litigation issues cause doctors to over medicate and over test because they do not want to be found negligent.
It is not just "corporate" greed that keeps the system expensive, but personal greed.
Doctors are no more public servant than are plumbers, electricians or the corner hot dog vendor. When physicians are employed by the government, they will be public servants. Then watch them flock to someplace where they can again be free to practise privately. Doctors in Canada want to practise in the US. As do doctors from all over the world. Not just for personal greed, but to pay fot their studies, to have the opportunity to work with the newest technologies and practices.

Answer 3

This kind of crap has been going on for a long, long time. Right now there are about 50 million people who do not have health insurance. They can't get doctors to treat them. What should be done? The insurance companies will never take a cut. They tell your doctor what tests he can do - not the other way around. Why is that? Maybe you are not for nationalized health care, but what other options are there. The USA is the only country in the industrialized world where they do not have free health care. Russia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Germany, Poland, even England have free health care. Why is America lagging behind? Could it be corporate greed?

Answer 4

I don't think it should be. I think we should expand Medicare for all citizens and those who want to buy a Not-for-profit HMO (btw they were NPOs until the Regean administration) on top of that should be able to.

Edit: About the above statment regardiing doctors being businessmen. They are public servants. I'm going to be entering a PhD program and probably do a post-doc fellowship that will give me 8 years of education beyond my BA. Does that simply make me a businessperson? No--it will make me an educator and a public servant.

Answer 5

yes, it is big business. Would you expect better care at a hospital that was making money or lossing money?

It sounds like there is a market for a healthcare provideder that is lower cost than the ones you mentioned. So where is it? If it isn't there, what is preventing it from being there?

Answer 6

There are a couple of problems at work.
1) There is to much governement regulation
2) We as a country take EVERY problem to the doctor and except his word as gospel; instead of using doctors as consultants.

Answer 7

to completeley wrap your mind around this one, you have to ask the tuff questions and be willing to accept the truth no matter how ugly it is. most people cannot do this. it is the only way things will change though. good research though, and yes, it is accurate. this problem is by design, not accident, know this. think population control, new world order.........