login
Conflict of Interest
-
No new posts
 2013-10-30 8:18 AM |
 Subject: Conflict of InterestThe Single Payer Health Care thread got me to thinking about the potential of a conflict of interest when the ACA is "fixed" with SPS (Single Payer System). The same people who are responsible for paying out SS payments will then be in charge of who gets what type of care/surgery/medication/procedures based on some set of criteria. I don't know if I would be comfortable with the private sector having a plan that had a pension/annuity that I could purchase which also provided for my healthcare. Especially with the company having the ability of changing the terms of my healthcare coverage at the whim of a few administrators. It does appear that is the direction we are headed or a lot of people in the USA want us go. |
| 2013-10-30 12:08 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Champion  6993      Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Conflict of Interest In a private environment where they would profit over my death (get unused retirement money) then yes I would think there would/could be a conflict of interest. Government I would think in theory should have less incentive to kill you off for money. Since they should not have the profit motive. I also would not worry as much about the government at the moment because well they are already doing that now with SS and medicare. Government might have more incentive to keep you alive because more people they have to deal with the money there department gets? |
| 2013-10-30 5:44 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Conflict of Interest |
| 2013-10-30 8:39 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Conflict of Interest Originally posted by chirunner134 In a private environment where they would profit over my death (get unused retirement money) then yes I would think there would/could be a conflict of interest. Government I would think in theory should have less incentive to kill you off for money. Since they should not have the profit motive. I also would not worry as much about the government at the moment because well they are already doing that now with SS and medicare. Government might have more incentive to keep you alive because more people they have to deal with the money there department gets? A private, non-monopoly company only has short-term benefit by killing off their customers. People catch on rather quickly, and customers flee.
A public, monopolistic solution knows you have NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. Also, it's not just you. They're going to promise you things in order to get your vote. Your kids have to pay for those things. A baby boomer will get around $400,000 (average) more OUT of SSI than he/she puts in. A kid born today will put IN $350,000 MORE than they will take OUT. Read that again, slowly. A kid, born in the US today, starts out with a $350,000 mortgage that they cannot escape... unless they choose not to work... which just shoves the burden onto their peers. What the government is doing to our kids is immoral. I have 3 (almost 4) kids. It is my duty as a father to try to come up with that extra $1.4 MILLON so that my kids aren't left with the burden of my care. |
| 2013-11-02 6:02 AM in reply to: crusevegas |
| Veteran 244 Ohio | Subject: RE: Conflict of Interest Originally posted by crusevegas The Single Payer Health Care thread got me to thinking about the potential of a conflict of interest when the ACA is "fixed" with SPS (Single Payer System). The same people who are responsible for paying out SS payments will then be in charge of who gets what type of care/surgery/medication/procedures based on some set of criteria. Unless I missed something...the people making SS payments already have a SPS for senior citizens (Medicare). |
| 2013-11-02 7:50 AM in reply to: buck1400 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Conflict of Interest Originally posted by buck1400 Originally posted by crusevegas Unless I missed something...the people making SS payments already have a SPS for senior citizens (Medicare). The Single Payer Health Care thread got me to thinking about the potential of a conflict of interest when the ACA is "fixed" with SPS (Single Payer System). The same people who are responsible for paying out SS payments will then be in charge of who gets what type of care/surgery/medication/procedures based on some set of criteria.
You missed the part where doctors are not required to accept Medicare. Under a real SPS, the doctors ONLY get paid by the government. |
| 2013-11-02 8:34 PM in reply to: moondawg14 |
| Veteran 244 Ohio | Subject: RE: Conflict of Interest True, although with 90% + of doctorsaccepting Medicare, I would consider it essentially a SPS for seniors. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK