Post by: Scout26 on December 17, 2007, 04:54:12 PM
A couple of things they might want to keep in mind:
1. If wed have had it for the last seven years theyd be complaining about Bushcare or maybe he would have delegated it and it would be known as Cheneycare .
2. Do you REALLY think that the same government that runs the TSA, CIA, Social Security, Public Education, etc. Could run healthcare any better then any other task they stick their grubby mitts on??? Puuuhhhhh-leazzzzz. Come look at the rulings and methods used by the BATFE do you REALLY think that the Healthcare Administration would treat you any better?
Lets get real. Do you really want your kids treated by the same people who screen you and your baggage at the airport Because thats what youd get and dont think that you wouldnt.......good and hard.The major problem with healthcare is the same problem we have with public education, too much government interference/involvement. The more government gets involved with anything the more it costs. We already have universal healthcare, its called Medicaid. Ask anyone whos on it or ever been on it if they prefer it to private health insurance. Ask a Vet about the VA.
No one talks about the auto insurance crisis, and why is that??? Because you pick your own car insurance, same with your homeowners or renters insurance.
Lets see, theres a lizard that will give me a buttered English Muffin if I have a claim, while saving me 15% in 15 minutes or less. This apparently causes mental anguish in Cavemen. My Good Neighbors promise to forgive my accidents. The Good Hands people reduce my deductible every six months I dont have an accident. Then theres a progressive company that will cover Vet bills for on my dogs injuries if my idiot brother in law trashes my car when he borrows it to take out to the desert to do donuts. They will also give me rate quotes from two other companies to compare. Theres a cartoon super agent that allows me to quote, buy, print my insurance card on-line and reduce my carbon footprint. Then theres a company that will keep me legal for less by giving me bare minimum coverage. Im sure Ive missed some others that want to provide me with insurance, but you get the idea.
So how come I have to get my health insurance through my employer? Glad you asked. In the later stages of WWII, the work force was maxed out as the Armed Forces approached 16 million people under arms. The government (and employers) were worried that the demand for labor increased there would be disruptions of necessary war production as employees started job-hopping and driving wages higher, sparking inflation. Uncle Sam was pretty adamant that that NOT happen. So what to do??? They didnt want to raise wages, so they came up with a great idea to give the employees benefits. And to reduce the costs to companies (again to avoid inflationary pressures and increased costs of wartime production) The government made health insurance (benefits) tax deductible to the employers. It was a win-win-win for everyone. Employees got a raise , Employers got to give raise without incurring an additional cost, and Uncle Sam got uninterrupted wartime production while avoiding inflation and without increased labor costs of production contracts. So the war ended and those wartime measures ended, right ? Now quite, so here we are 60+ years later and we still operating under wartime rules, much like Rent Control in New York and the recently repealed telephone tax to finance the Spanish-American War. IMHO, every bill passed by congress (or state legislatures) should have a sunset provision of, say 7 years. If its still a good idea, itll pass again. Thats one way to bad or stupid laws off the books, but I digress.
Maybe if we took the employer component out and let families and individuals choose their own insurance like we now do with car or homeowners insurance, we wouldnt have the current crisis . Why should I pay for Pregnancy and well baby care?? Were done having kids. With care insurance I choose a variety of options, from bare minimum public damage/public liability to rental car re-imbursement coverage. I should be able to custom tailor my health care coverage just like I custom tailor my car insurance. The resulting competition will reduce costs just like it has with car insurance, computers, and cell-phones and every other product or service that has to compete in the free-market.
Post by: Paddy on December 17, 2007, 04:59:56 PM
Post by: Scout26 on December 17, 2007, 05:09:23 PM
Quote
A single payer healthcare system has been proven successful for the last 40+ years. It's called 'Medicare'.
Again part of the reason that health care costs are out of control. Ask any healthcare provider what they think about Medicare.....
And as far as coverage.....We up to what "Part D" to cover stuff that wasn't covered before and costs continue to spiral upward.
Quote
The solution to the 'healthcare crisis' is to simply expand Medicare to cover every U.S. citizen, and get rid of the private insurers.
It's called Socialism, read "The Road to Serfdom" by Fredrich Hayek.If you really feel that way, I've spent over $12,000 this year out of pocket on my health care. Let me know how much you should be "taxed" to pay for my healthcare. I accept Checks and MO's..
Post by: grampster on December 17, 2007, 05:13:13 PM
In what alternative universe are you ensconced? Medicare is rife with fraud, mismanagement, huge paperwork etc etc etc. They can't even get my wife's name correct, and it's been 7 months since we gave the original documents over to them. It works, but it would work better if the government is out of it...wait...it is. You can select from a group of private companies and actually get more benefits. Still new, so the jury is still out.
Scout has hit the nail on the head. The employers can pay the employee what they pay in now and still get the tax benefits and the employee must use that money for what he wants for care purchased like he does his auto, home and life insurance. Competition in the life insurance business in the 90' drove term premiums down drastically and cause all sorts of changes in types of policies and benefits. Puts competition into the process as well as customizing for your needs. That truly is the answer, not more statism.
And this bull pucky about millions not having any health care? Walk into any emergency room and ask for a show of hands by those who are uninsured. They get treated. In Michigan, a no fault auto state, the medical bills for auto injuries are inflated to 180% of the actual cost, admitted to by the medical industry in a court battle a number of years ago, to pay for indigent care for all reasons at the hospitals. So your car insurance is already the one payer system for the uninsured.
I respect your wisdom Riley, because you're almost as old as me and you do know better.
Post by: Paddy on December 17, 2007, 05:17:20 PM
Quote
Again part of the reason that health care costs are out of control. Ask any healthcare provider what they think about Medicare.....
I worked for a large hospital system for several years, and can tell you that a majority of healthcare providers, especially hospitals, depend on Medicare for an income stream. The single largest issue is with different reimbursement rates for different areas.
Quote
And as far as coverage.....We up to what "Part D" to cover stuff that wasn't covered before and costs continue to spiral upward.
Part D wasn't about the insured. Part D is about transferring what will eventually be trillions of dollars of public funds into private hands.
Quote
If you really feel that way, I've spent over $12,000 this year out of pocket on my health care. Let me know how much you should be "taxed" to pay for my healthcare. I accept Checks and MO's..
Why so much? I thought 'privatization' and 'competition' were good for consumers.................
Post by: wooderson on December 17, 2007, 05:21:43 PM
Quote
No one talks about the auto insurance crisis, and why is that??? Because you pick your own car insurance, same with your homeowners or renters insurance.
Uh... "auto insurance" only pays in the case of catastrophe. Likewise homeowners and renters' insurance. Relatively small deductibles, but only because it's assumed that the insurer isn't going to be paying out regularly. (Further, I suspect there's about as many people who don't have home or auto insurance as there are without medical insurance. Why isn't this a crisis? Because those people don't own homes or cars.)"Health insurance," as commonly referred to, is actually 'health service,' covering your preventive care, routine checkups, prescriptions, etc..
It is entirely possible for individuals to purchase affordable 'health insurance' that only covers hospitalization and major health issues - but most people find this useless, given that it's the cost of routine healthcare/specialists and drugs they feel to be prohibitive. Worst case they go to the ER and figure out a way not to pay - why bother with insurance if you're low income and can probably get it mostly covered somehow? (And, as bad a record as for-profit insurance schemes have been in providing care to cancer patients, et al., why pay every month hoping they'll cover you later?)
Post by: Paddy on December 17, 2007, 05:25:59 PM
Quote
Medicare is rife with fraud, mismanagement, huge paperwork etc etc etc. They can't even get my wife's name correct, and it's been 7 months since we gave the original documents over to them.
Fraud is on the part of the 'healthcare providers'. You know, those good doctors and hospitals that care so much about their patients? It has nothing to with the Medicare system. I challenge you to name a system as big as Medicare without any 'fraud or mismanagement'. As far as 'huge paperwork', that is no longer the case thanks to the DRG system and electronic billing.
Quote
It works, but it would work better if the government is out of it...wait...it is. You can select from a group of private companies and actually get more benefits.
You damn betcha it works. Thanks to Medicare, money is not the primary issue in the delivery of healthcare to those it covers. Private companies sell 'supplemental' policies, but the basic Part A, and Part B (hospitals and doctors) are still government operated and funded.
Post by: roo_ster on December 17, 2007, 05:49:00 PM
The OP nailed it. Get the gooberment outta it and give the illegals the boot and the cost of health care 'round here would take a nose dive.
Post by: wooderson on December 17, 2007, 06:27:39 PM
Post by: Paddy on December 17, 2007, 06:33:56 PM
"Illegals" are why it costs $120+ to see a GP if you don't have a co-pay?
No, they're just a convenient scapegoat. It costs $120+ to see a GP because the private insurance companies have squeezed that GP so hard (so they can pay their CEO a coupla billion $ while they screw their shareholders) that he has to charge that just to pay his outrageous malpractice premiums to the other insurance co.
Yeah, we need 20-30% of our healthcare dollars being ripped off by private companies. That's why there's a 'crisis'.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 17, 2007, 06:50:34 PM
A single payer healthcare system has been proven successful for the last 40+ years. It's called 'Medicare'. The solution to the 'healthcare crisis' is to simply expand Medicare to cover every U.S. citizen, and get rid of the private insurers.
Uh, no. What if I don't WANT the government to cover me? I'd rather find and pay for my own insurance.
Post by: wooderson on December 17, 2007, 06:56:21 PM
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 17, 2007, 07:00:29 PM
Post by: wooderson on December 17, 2007, 07:12:08 PM
Quote
How anyone with two brain cells to rub together could want the United States Government in charge of health care boggles my mind.
Very simple: because the profit-centered version we've got now isn't working for a majority of Americans. So they would like to try something different - it could be, at worst, no different than what we've got now.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 17, 2007, 07:13:09 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 17, 2007, 07:16:02 PM
I think at worst, it would be like any other corrupt, wasteful government agency. Except it's the government, so you've no choice but to get your health care from them. The hell with that.
Wait, would this plan ban all other forms of healthcare?
or are you just presuming that the "free market" solutions wouldn't offer enough incentive to enough consumers to be viable?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 17, 2007, 07:17:46 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 17, 2007, 07:30:32 PM
Riley's idea was to extend medicare to cover all US citizens, and do away with private insurance. That sounds like a ban to me. Again, the hell with that. The last thing I need, or want, is more government in my life. Anyway who wants to force more government on me, especially in the area of my health can piss directly off.
I tend to be conservative, but after seeing how much useless bureaucracy and waste our system has compared to the really good government systems in some other countries, I don't buy this line.
I don't know any Aussie, for example, who dreams of having American style healthcare. No Singaporeans either-indeed, healthcare is at least arguably more accessible (and just as good) in Thailand than in the USA. It's a third world country that somehow manages to secure and provide medicine as advanced as ours at a fraction of the cost.
We have the most inefficient healthcare system of any developed country I've ever seen, by far.
Post by: BridgeWalker on December 17, 2007, 07:30:52 PM
Medicaid/medicare is vastly more efficient than private insurance with far less overhead.
And I'm tired of slowly but inexorably losing more and more of the use of my left arm because no matter what insurance I have, I would have to come up with thousands' of dollars worth of deductibles, copays, "coinsurance", and non-covered services to get the surgery I've needed for five years now. And I'd have to fight with them for every penny of it.
In another year and a half or so, I'll have my JD, and the decent insurance will probably come with that, and eventually I'll get my shoulder fixed. But I've been in pain most of the time for five years. My right arm and hand are subtantially weaker than my right. I've learned to adapt--I shoot right-handed, even though I'm a lefty. I shoot a light weight upland gun for trap. I write with fountain pens, which require no downward pressure like ballpens. I manage. But it irks me that I've paid about $20,000 in premiums in the past five years (it would be more, except we've had periods of being uninsured) and in return have received under $500 worth of services because I can't afford the extra money it would cost to get what I need. Which should, incidentally, cost a whole lot less than $20,000.
Yeah, I'm all for universal coverage. We have public schools and yet people still have educational choice. For myself, I'm hoping to homeschool, but it' nice to know that public schools are available as a backup. I mostly use the law library at my (private) school, but sometimes I need something not law-oriented and I'm more than happy to use the local state university library or the local municipal library. If I'm interested in a book on women's health, though, I would go to the small private library of books on that subject maintained by a group in the local community. I sure don't mind driving on public roads.
My first choice of doctor will always be an overtly pro-life/Catholic ob/gyn. If that mode of practice becomes unavailable through a gov't health plan, then when I can afford it, I will pay privately. I've got no problem paying privately for what I want, and I don't doubt that it can remain available and a viable option. After all, almost none of the women I know have had insurance cover their maternity care. We chose an alternative, and we paid for it. Fine. That option is not really available when it comes to orthopaedic surgery though; hospital charges are prohibitive, and utterly ludicrous.
It is absurd that so very many people, often people who work hard and make a decent living, cannot afford necessary health care, even when they pay 20, or 30, or 40 percent of their pay in insurnce premiums. It is ludicrous how expensive it is, and it is mostly because of the massive amounts of pencil-pushing at every level. The only people winning are the insurance companies.
$20,000 in premiums says I should not be in pain right now, and for the past five years.
Yeah, I'd give the government a shot at it. Seems to work for most of the rest of the world.
Post by: wooderson on December 17, 2007, 07:32:43 PM
Quote
I think at worst, it would be like any other corrupt, wasteful government agency.
Which, in this day and age, is perceived as a lesser evil than corrupt, wasteful bidness. Humanity is, by and large, practical rather than ideological. American distrust of government is based on experience or received information - not a libertarian/Paulista belief that any use of the state is bad and wrong. The nation isn't going to oppose national healthcare on the principle of capitalism/individualism/whateverism, so that's a brick wall if you're trying to convince people that the current system (or an even further deregulated version) is the best of all possible worlds.
The current mood is that maybe the power of the state can be harnessed to not suck as much as our current healthcare system. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong - but it will, within my lifetime, be very much a reality. Now that Wal-Mart/et al. have joined in on calls for a system that shifts all burden off of their books, it will happen.
Post by: GigaBuist on December 17, 2007, 07:54:37 PM
I've had some form of insurance or another through my employers for upwards of 7 years now. Before that I was still in college, or under 18, therefore covered by my parent's care. Well, when they did have health insurance that is. They didn't have any from the time I was 4-12 years old. Give or take a few years.
I've visited a doctor twice in the past 8 years now. I came down with strep throat, went into a med clinic, told them I have insurance but I don't have the details on it, they balked, I said I'd just pay for the visit right there, I'm in, doc does his work, sends out for some blood work (said I didn't have strep throat, but I actually did. The in-house test only looks for the strain usually found in humans -- I had Group D or Type D, usually found in horse and cattle. No idea how that happened) he still gives me a 'script for antibiotics, I fill it, pay cash money for it.
A few days later I get a call from a local hospital asking about insurance. I'm confused, thinking this has to do with my car or something, figure out they want money for the blood work, I tell them I'll just PAY the fee and they instantly knock 20% off the bill.
Health care is just plain cheaper if you pay for it. I can't think of any other industry where the vast majority of all payments are made through a 3rd party. Can you imagine how jacked up home repair would be if Home Depot had to deal with your home insurance just to buy a new dishwasher? That's exactly the bullcrap we're engaged in right now with the medical community.
When you delay payment costs will increase. The doc has to operate on loaned money if they're constantly 90 days away from payment for services rendered. They have to pay interest on the borrowed money and the client will have to make up for that. Further, they have to pay more employees to handle all of those documents which also adds to the cost. This adds up.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 17, 2007, 08:05:16 PM
The doc has to operate on loaned money if they're constantly 90 days away from payment for services rendered. They have to pay interest on the borrowed money and the client will have to make up for that. Further, they have to pay more employees to handle all of those documents which also adds to the cost. This adds up.
You got that right. I'm the IT manager for a small health care company. You should see the paperwork that flows through our offices. It's unbelievable. And we're a non-profit, so the regulations we have to comply with are staggering.
Post by: De Selby on December 17, 2007, 08:08:26 PM
Quote
Has anybody here actually tried just PAYING for their health care? It's amazing! It works!
I used to work at a place where I watched REAMS and REAMS of letters roll through where insurance companies refused to pay up when their customers needed care. It happens-frequently.
Sometimes just paying doesn't work-you pay for insurance, and then the enormous bureaucracy that is whatevercompany HMO does everything it can to prevent one single penny flowing out when you need it.
Quote
Health care is just plain cheaper if you pay for it.
This is a good point-the insurance setup here is inherently inefficient.
The problem is that because of the way things work, if you have any serious health problems, you will be long bankrupt before you can "just pay for it." A single round of heart disease or cancer, paid for out of pocket, can bankrupt a good 90 percent of the population.
So we're forced to pay for insurance-and most of the money we pay into the insurance ends up funding endless bureaucracy, instead of more medicine.
Post by: Bogie on December 17, 2007, 08:48:22 PM
Post by: wooderson on December 17, 2007, 09:11:25 PM
This is why healthcare eats up less of the GDP throughout the civilized world.
Post by: BridgeWalker on December 17, 2007, 09:15:31 PM
Figure in not working because of said catastrophe, and nope, no possibility of it working out.
As for paying for care? Yep. Done it: one pregnancy, one baby $1800. That doesn't work as well for things requirig hospitalization. They will still charge you ten bucks for that aspirin you didn't even take.
Post by: geronimotwo on December 18, 2007, 03:48:18 AM
Post by: mfree on December 18, 2007, 04:17:26 AM
Post by: Firethorn on December 18, 2007, 06:28:34 AM
I worked for a large hospital system for several years, and can tell you that a majority of healthcare providers, especially hospitals, depend on Medicare for an income stream. The single largest issue is with different reimbursement rates for different areas.
Just because they depend upon it doesn't mean that it isn't an inefficient boondoggle, not to mention that with increased effciency the hospitals could probably find alternate revenue streams.
The trick with medicare is if you ask the question 'who does it cover', the answer is mostly the retired and disabled. Who needs the most medical care? The retired and disabled.
Quote from: RileyMC
Fraud is on the part of the 'healthcare providers'. You know, those good doctors and hospitals that care so much about their patients? It has nothing to with the Medicare system. I challenge you to name a system as big as Medicare without any 'fraud or mismanagement'. As far as 'huge paperwork', that is no longer the case thanks to the DRG system and electronic billing.
This came up on another forum, and I did a quick check. Approximately 11% of medicare payments are fraudulent. It happens everywhere. Sure, other companies will have fraud, waste and abuse. But 11%? This doesn't even include waste.
Quote from: wooderson
"Health insurance," as commonly referred to, is actually 'health service,' covering your preventive care, routine checkups, prescriptions, etc..
Agreed, though the 'High deductable' plans which combine what's essentially a savings account with insurance to cover if you exceed that level is close.
Quote
It is entirely possible for individuals to purchase affordable 'health insurance' that only covers hospitalization and major health issues - but most people find this useless, given that it's the cost of routine healthcare/specialists and drugs they feel to be prohibitive.
I've read of a number of cases where if it wasn't for the fighting between insurance companies and providers, care would be substantially cheaper.
For example, when my brother broke his arm he didn't have insurance. Still, they charged him half of what they would have charged an insurance company for paying cash upfront for the X-ray.
Years ago they had a tale of a GP who, fed up with life working in a clinic, closed shop and started working out of her home with a part time nurse. She charged for kids by the pound, kept minimal records, etc...
Many people with health plans would take their kids to her when they had minor illnesses/injuries because her basic fee was below their copay.
And she was making 2/3rds the money with 1/2 the work.
Quote from: shootinstudent
I don't know any Aussie, for example, who dreams of having American style healthcare. No Singaporeans either-indeed, healthcare is at least arguably more accessible (and just as good) in Thailand than in the USA. It's a third world country that somehow manages to secure and provide medicine as advanced as ours at a fraction of the cost.
Which do you think is more likely, Singapore/Australia style coverage, or the at least semi-broken mess that's Britain's and Canada's system?
Our problem is that we've managed to take the worst of both worlds of medical healthcare. We're neither free market or government single-payer. Instead we have the government sticking it's fingers(and money) into everything while the commercial operators try to work around it. Oh, and if you lose your job you'll eventually lose coverage as well(even assuming you have enough money to keep paying for coverage). At least through that company. You get the health insurance your company chooses, not you. At least for the majority of americans.
Quote from: wooderson
Unless that cold is bronchitis, which becomes pneumonia, which becomes a $3000 ER trip (the basic cost for walking through the door) that gets paid by you, your insurance (if it's the bottom of the barrel kind - and you hope they pick up the tab) or when you can't pay and your insurance can't pay... gets eaten by the hospital. (Now, if the argument then is that the hospital isn't really eating $3, that its actual costs are much lower, that circles around into the wisdom of a profit-oriented health system...)
Of you don't get an appointment to see your PCM until six months in the future because all appointments are full until then, and you end up in the ER anyways.
There are often issues with government healthcare, some of which is denial of care to needy people, sometimes until they don't need it anymore because they're dead.
Google medical waiting lists in the UK/Canada.
With 'Doc in a Box' type clinics I've seen outright cash charges around $40 for a 'cold/strep/pnemonia' assesment visit. Combine that with a high deductible insurance plan combined with a tax-advantaged health savings account where you just swipe your card(automatically tracks health care purchases) to pay for care.
Quote
The trouble with catastrophic plans, for me at least, is that they have never worked out financially. Still several hundreds dollars, still a six or eight thousand dollar deductible, and then still only 70 or 80% coverage.
Then you need to shop around a bit more. My dad's plan was 100% after the deductible was met. And that was an annual deductible, not per visit/incident.
Quote from: geronimotwo
the really horrible part of the situation is that if the hospital accepted the same payment from the consumer as what they accept from hmo's and medicare/aid, then i wouldn't need insurance for my family in the first place (as i could afford to pay it myself).
They're trying to make up for the uninsured who don't pay. Try negotiating up front(if possible). Either that or stay out of the large hospitals(admin nightmares) in favor of smaller clinics.
Post by: wooderson on December 18, 2007, 07:34:18 AM
Quote
Of you don't get an appointment to see your PCM until six months in the future because all appointments are full until then, and you end up in the ER anyways.
If this were true, it would be borne out in medical costs or quality of care. But it's not.Quote
With 'Doc in a Box' type clinics I've seen outright cash charges around $40 for a 'cold/strep/pnemonia' assesment visit. Combine that with a high deductible insurance plan combined with a tax-advantaged health savings account where you just swipe your card(automatically tracks health care purchases) to pay for care.
I'm referring specifically to Doc in a Box clinics, private practices run higher - there's not one DIAB in North Texas, which is a low cost of living area - that you see a doctor for less than $100 without a co-pay. The last time I went in one (for a GP to look at my eye (scratched the cornea, couldn't wait for my free university clinic to see me), flush it and prescribe me some painkillers (lovely, lovely painkillers) was $130.Post by: Scout26 on December 18, 2007, 08:34:52 AM
Again the problem is the government interference, not the "evil CEO's" and their salaries. That's just socialist class envy.
Again if we got .gov out the heatlhcare business, insurance companies woudl be free to develop and tailor products to meet their customers needs, much like they have with car insurance. Coverting to single payer or universal will just lock-in the current ineffiencies. As it stands now, I can only choose between a "High" deductible plan or a "Low" deductible. When I get my homeowners or car insurance, I can choose to get just "basic" coverage, but then I can choose to add anywhere from 15-30 different options to my policies. Things like water back-up, replacement cost coverage, etc..... and as I pointed out in my OP, the car insurance companies are offering customers a variety of coverages and features to attract and retain their customers (the greedy bastards
).Again the free market will create solutions to the problem, meeting their customers needs. Socialization of medicine will make the bad parts worse and the good parts bad.
Free markets find individual solutions to individual problems. Governments force a single solution to fit everyones problem.
Post by: wooderson on December 18, 2007, 09:04:56 AM
Quote
Every complaint here can be pointed out that it is caused by .gov interference/restrictions/regulations.
If you're ideologically predisposed, sure.Every complaint in the history of manking can be blamed on '.gov' if you're feeling up to it. My shoulder hurts today, must have been that nasty government making me, uh, do something. I dunno what, but I'm sure it's because of regulation.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 18, 2007, 09:33:06 AM
1) Get gov't out of the business. The basic issue is that people using healthcare and people paying for healthcare are not the same. Each state imposes mandates on insurers, driving up costs in that state. And you aren't free to shop across state lines.
2) End deductibility of health insurance costs to employers. Employers could pay their employees more to cover it, gov't could tax people less so they could afford it.
3) Cap malpractice damages.
In all the theme is making people responsible for their own health. If people ate approrpriately, quit smoking, drank moderately and exercised there wouldn't be a health care crisis.
Post by: Glock Glockler on December 18, 2007, 09:47:22 AM
Why is it that I can buy a much better DVD player now than I could have 8yrs ago at a fraction of the price, yet healthcare costs more and more for less?
I can't think of a sector of the economy where the govt is less involved than tech. and I also cannot think of one it is more involved than healthcare.
Post by: K Frame on December 18, 2007, 09:57:59 AM
I wonder if the solution might be to simply kill everyone...
Post by: wooderson on December 18, 2007, 09:58:53 AM
Quote
Why is it that I can buy a much better DVD player now than I could have 8yrs ago at a fraction of the price, yet healthcare costs more and more for less?
Because DVD technology matured. A good Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player will cost you... exactly what a good DVD player cost you in 1999. Probably more, actually.Healthcare costs haven't - and don't - mature in the same way at the same rate.
Yeesh.
Post by: wooderson on December 18, 2007, 09:59:34 AM
Post by: Glock Glockler on December 18, 2007, 10:09:21 AM
Healthcare costs haven't - and don't - mature in the same way at the same rate.
Yeesh.
First off, I can get a much wider selection of DVD players for a lot less than they were years ago, I got a good one at Walmart for $35 a few months ago. Keep in mind that inflation has taken place and the change is even more dramatic.
That being the case, why can't improved technology lower healthcare costs?
If you got the govt out of the healthcare business you'd see healthcare being delived more and more efficiently to the market, just like any other industry when market forces are allowed to do their thing.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 18, 2007, 10:13:08 AM
There are three things needed to end the "health care crisis."
1) Get gov't out of the business. The basic issue is that people using healthcare and people paying for healthcare are not the same. Each state imposes mandates on insurers, driving up costs in that state. And you aren't free to shop across state lines.
2) End deductibility of health insurance costs to employers. Employers could pay their employees more to cover it, gov't could tax people less so they could afford it.
3) Cap malpractice damages.
In all the theme is making people responsible for their own health. If people ate approrpriately, quit smoking, drank moderately and exercised there wouldn't be a health care crisis.
1) Get gov't out of the business. The basic issue is that people using healthcare and people paying for healthcare are not the same. Each state imposes mandates on insurers, driving up costs in that state. And you aren't free to shop across state lines.
2) End deductibility of health insurance costs to employers. Employers could pay their employees more to cover it, gov't could tax people less so they could afford it.
3) Cap malpractice damages.
In all the theme is making people responsible for their own health. If people ate approrpriately, quit smoking, drank moderately and exercised there wouldn't be a health care crisis.
Damn. Right.
Although Mike's idea of killing everyone would be my close second choice.
Post by: Waitone on December 18, 2007, 10:52:16 AM
We can spin all kinds of free market tales about the superiority of a free market approach to health care but it is largely irrelevant. We have exactly the system our handlers want us to have. And we are about to go the full monty on national health care. Major business is tired of paying the costs of healthcare and they are about to strike an alliance with government to nationalize health care. Why? Because it is a cost that can be shed simply by relocating to another country. Look for the big legacy companies (GM, Ford, GE, etc) to crawl into bed with our elected statists to off load medical costs onto the taxpayer.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 18, 2007, 11:02:23 AM
There are three things needed to end the "health care crisis."
1) Get gov't out of the business. The basic issue is that people using healthcare and people paying for healthcare are not the same. Each state imposes mandates on insurers, driving up costs in that state. And you aren't free to shop across state lines.
2) End deductibility of health insurance costs to employers. Employers could pay their employees more to cover it, gov't could tax people less so they could afford it.
3) Cap malpractice damages.
In all the theme is making people responsible for their own health. If people ate approrpriately, quit smoking, drank moderately and exercised there wouldn't be a health care crisis.
1) Get gov't out of the business. The basic issue is that people using healthcare and people paying for healthcare are not the same. Each state imposes mandates on insurers, driving up costs in that state. And you aren't free to shop across state lines.
2) End deductibility of health insurance costs to employers. Employers could pay their employees more to cover it, gov't could tax people less so they could afford it.
3) Cap malpractice damages.
In all the theme is making people responsible for their own health. If people ate approrpriately, quit smoking, drank moderately and exercised there wouldn't be a health care crisis.
Damn. Right.
Although Mike's idea of killing everyone would be my close second choice.
Well, it does have the virtue of simplicity.
Post by: wooderson on December 18, 2007, 11:06:39 AM
Quote
First off, I can get a much wider selection of DVD players for a lot less than they were years ago, I got a good one at Walmart for $35 a few months ago. Keep in mind that inflation has taken place and the change is even more dramatic.
Yeah, I kind of answered that.Quote
That being the case, why can't improved technology lower healthcare costs?
Drug patents, for one, between the length of patent exclusivity and patent holders are less apt to license technology (since a drug, for the most part isn't part of a functioning whole, as with electronic components, but an ends to itself). You're buying the 'generic' DVD player today - if you could buy a generic prescription drug eight years after the first one hits the market, how would that effect health expenditures?Doctors are a rather large expense in healthcare - and so far as I know, we've yet to find a way to manufacture them faster and cheaper. If you've got a lead on some super-cheap robo-docs, I'd love to hear about them.
Begging the question - particularly in such an inane apples-to-oranges scenario - doesn't work. You can't just whine that "see, this ain't got no interference, and it works good!" You've got to show how the two fields are similar. You've got to show exactly how 'government regulation' differs between the two fields, how the implentation of regulation on one might effect the other. Etc. etc. etc.
Post by: Paddy on December 18, 2007, 11:15:07 AM
Quote
First off, I can get a much wider selection of DVD players for a lot less than they were years ago, I got a good one at Walmart for $35 a few months ago. Keep in mind that inflation has taken place and the change is even more dramatic.
That being the case, why can't improved technology lower healthcare costs?
That being the case, why can't improved technology lower healthcare costs?
There's no basis for comparison. Your DVD player is made in China by slave labor. Your healthcare is delivered personally and individually to you by people who spend a long time in school getting advanced degrees (many of those schools, btw, are government sponsored, as are many of the students).
'Improved technology' is always going to be extremely expensive because the private company that developed the technology did so for profit. They want to get as much money as possible for their product.
That's the free market 'n all.............
Post by: Firethorn on December 18, 2007, 12:19:17 PM
Every complaint here can be pointed out that it is caused by .gov interference/restrictions/regulations.
Again the problem is the government interference, not the "evil CEO's" and their salaries. That's just socialist class envy.
Again the problem is the government interference, not the "evil CEO's" and their salaries. That's just socialist class envy.
Is this a complaint? I haven't particularly heard about healthcare insurance CEOs making enough money to make the news out of any proportion of other CEOs.
Fact is that medical care is one of the most regulated industries in this country. Depending on how you consider it, it might be the most.
I might not have pointed it out specifically enough, but I do favor a move away from 'health care plans' back to 'health care insurance'.
Consumers not having to pay(visibly) for their healthcare is a large portion of the problem.
Wooderson, it might be that local regulations prohibit doc-in-a-box type businesses. Still, $40 or $120 - it's still probably cheaper than what it costs through insurance
Come to think of it. Figure the doc takes 10 minutes per patient, and works a 8 hour day seeing patients. That's 48 patients a day, 240 a week, 12k a year(2 weeks vacation).
At $40 per visit, that's $480k a year. Within reason, I think. Figure $200k for the doc, $100k for the nurse, $80k for the receptionist, $100k for etc such as supplies, building rent, and profit.
At $120 per visit, that'd swell to 1.44M per year.
But then, these figures are based on WAGs. If they end up having half their clients not pay, for example, that'd quickly explain the extra expense.
Quote
(scratched the cornea, couldn't wait for my free university clinic to see me),
Ah, the wait was too long for the government funded* healthcare, so you went to private practice.
*Or maybe through your tuition, but universities are a lot like government.
Post by: Scout26 on December 18, 2007, 12:21:49 PM
Quote
technology' is always going to be extremely expensive because the private company that developed the technology did so for profit. They want to get as much money as possible for their product.
Wow, a laptop that costs over $2000 a couple of years ago, can be had for less then $1000 today. I guess, Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc. is just gouging their customers.
Oh, and a huge expense with developing new healthcare technology (and Drugs) is the expense of complying with USFDA regs.
Quote
Quote
Why is it that I can buy a much better DVD player now than I could have 8yrs ago at a fraction of the price, yet healthcare costs more and more for less?
Because DVD technology matured. A good Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player will cost you... exactly what a good DVD player cost you in 1999. Probably more, actually.Healthcare costs haven't - and don't - mature in the same way at the same rate.
What ?!?!?!??!? Yep, doctors are still performing blood letting and adjusting the humors. In everyother industry technoolgy has managed to reduce costs or improve effieciency, yet only in healthcare does technology raise costs. Yeah, right.
Name one country that has socialized medicine that has a better standard of care then the US. (hint: when the rich and famous need healthcare where do they go ?)
Quote
I wonder if the solution might be to simply kill everyone...
Then we'd have a funeral/burial crisis that RileyMc, Wooderson, would want Hilliary/Obama/Edwards to solve.
Post by: Paddy on December 18, 2007, 12:42:54 PM
Quote
Wow, a laptop that costs over $2000 a couple of years ago, can be had for less then $1000 today. I guess, Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc. is just gouging their customers.
Apparently, you've never heard of 'economies of scale'. Those companies will sell a gazillion of those laptops. Philips won't sell anywhere near that number of new 16 slice CT scanners, however. And you can bet the CT scanner is not manufactured in some 3rd world sweatshop like your computer, either.
Quote
Oh, and a huge expense with developing new healthcare technology (and Drugs) is the expense of complying with USFDA regs.
Right. Evil government is responsible for high drug prices and the HUGE multibillion dollar profits they generate.
Post by: Scout26 on December 18, 2007, 12:49:44 PM
[/sarcasm]
Post by: Scout26 on December 18, 2007, 01:01:29 PM
Quote
And you can bet the CT scanner is not manufactured in some 3rd world sweatshop like your computer, either.
Wanna bet ?? I worked for a freight forwarder/customs broker up at O'Hare for several years..... Our third biggest import commodity after Electronics (computers/cell-phones) and Clothing was Medical Equipment. Used to drive the Customs agents crazy. Anyone can say "That's a computer, or that's a Wool Sweater." But once you get to medical equipment the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is not very informative....and we'd spend quite a bit of time scratching our heads and saying "Well they say it's this and they made it, so I'd bet that's what it is....."
Google "medical equipment manufacturers in china" or "india" or any other 3rd world sweatshop nation.
Post by: Tallpine on December 18, 2007, 01:19:38 PM
Cheat them money hungry docs and horsespittals out of a living
Post by: Paddy on December 18, 2007, 01:23:08 PM
Quote
Wanna bet ?? I worked for a freight forwarder/customs broker up at O'Hare for several years.....
Well, why didn't you say so earlier? That right there qualifies you to make experienced, educated, objective assessments of the U.S. healthcare system.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 18, 2007, 02:58:47 PM
Quote
Wanna bet ?? I worked for a freight forwarder/customs broker up at O'Hare for several years.....
Well, why didn't you say so earlier? That right there qualifies you to make experienced, educated, objective assessments of the U.S. healthcare system.
No, but it does make him qualified to say whether medical equipment is made in China et al.
And since when has qualification, or even specific knowledge, ever been a bar to posting here?
Post by: Scout26 on December 18, 2007, 03:08:31 PM
Quote
Quote
Wanna bet ?? I worked for a freight forwarder/customs broker up at O'Hare for several years.....
Well, why didn't you say so earlier? That right there qualifies you to make experienced, educated, objective assessments of the U.S. healthcare system.
No, that makes me an experienced Logistics Manager, which puts me on par with Hilliary, Obama, and/or Edwards to run Healthcare.
The difference being that I just want to choose my own healthcare and not be forced to take what either my employer or the .gov makes me take. I think that competition and the free market can meet my needs better then a one-size-fits-no-one .gov plan. Just like I currently do with my Life, Home, and Car Insurance.My mother, wife and four sisters-in-law are RN's. My wife currently works as a case manager for an insurance company after 22 years as a NICU nurse. I've heard and learned quite a bit from them. Plus my own experience dealing with Insurance companies sick I got sick over a year ago. The healthcare system is a mess and the way to fix it is to get the .gov out.
Post by: wooderson on December 18, 2007, 03:28:30 PM
Quote
What ?!?!?!??!? Yep, doctors are still performing blood letting and adjusting the humors.
Actually, the are still performing bloodletting through the use of leeches (and maggot therapy may fall under this as well...).Quote
In everyother industry technoolgy has managed to reduce costs or improve effieciency, yet only in healthcare does technology raise costs. Yeah, right.
Um, yeah. We live longer, through more hazardous diseases, thanks to expensive technology. There were no MRIs or CTs or an X-Ray machine in every clinic back in the day. They cost money.And, of course, electronics 'technology' has bugger all to do with doctor training, doctor salaries, drug costs, etc.., so I don't even know what you're talking about.
Quote
Name one country that has socialized medicine that has a better standard of care then the US.
Canada, France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark...
Post by: Paddy on December 18, 2007, 03:34:30 PM
Quote
The difference being that I just want to choose my own healthcare and not be forced to take what either my employer or the .gov makes me take. I think that competition and the free market can meet my needs better then a one-size-fits-no-one .gov plan. Just like I currently do with my Life, Home, and Car Insurance.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is 'forcing' you to do anything? You are entirely free to purchase your own individual policy for healthcare, as I do. I chose the plan and pay the premium. In my case it's a HDHP and allows me to use the HSA. My deductible every year is $3500, and the total premiums are about the same. So I will pay $7000 out of pocket before any insurance kicks in.
I don't see how the '.gov' is interfering with my choice at all.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on December 18, 2007, 05:41:58 PM
Quote
What ?!?!?!??!? Yep, doctors are still performing blood letting and adjusting the humors.
Actually, the are still performing bloodletting through the use of leeches (and maggot therapy may fall under this as well...).That also includes Hemochromatosis, for which the only treatment is....bloodletting.
Post by: Tallpine on December 19, 2007, 07:23:36 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317189,00.html
"Sex Your Way to Better Health: A Dozen Reasons Why You Should Have Sex Tonight"
Post by: Firethorn on December 19, 2007, 05:19:49 PM
Quote
Name one country that has socialized medicine that has a better standard of care then the US.
Canada, France, the UK, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark...Canada has patients come down to the US for treatment all the time. UK is having a crisis with things like a woman who ended up going to France to get a hip replacement because she didn't want to/couldn't wait a year to get it.
Don't know about the other countries, but in my experience when we try to do this sort of stuff we usually end up worse than the Brits.
At most this should be a state level system. Though I agree - dial the government involvement way back, and adjust things so that people get their own healthcare.
Post by: Paddy on December 19, 2007, 05:24:01 PM
Quote
Though I agree - dial the government involvement way back, and adjust things so that people get their own healthcare.
doh. As I already explained above, there is nothing stopping you from 'getting your own healthcare'. I 'get my own healthcare'. You can too. Shop around and buy a policy, that's all. What's the problem?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on December 19, 2007, 05:25:07 PM
A single payer healthcare system has been proven successful for the last 40+ years. It's called 'Medicare'. The solution to the 'healthcare crisis' is to simply expand Medicare to cover every U.S. citizen, and get rid of the private insurers.
Make up your mind, Riley. You say you'd let us shop around, but your first post states you'd get rid of private insurers, and put us all on Medicare. Which is it?
Post by: Paddy on December 19, 2007, 05:36:18 PM
There is currently no single payer system and I'm not old enough for Medicare, so I must buy my own insurance. Nothing prevents me, or you, or scout26, or anybody else from doing this. It is not, however, an efficient system in that 20% -30% of our healthcare dollars go to corporate profits. That's a helluva lot of money that could buy a helluva lotta insurance, if there were a not-for-profit or government single payer system.
Post by: Firethorn on December 19, 2007, 05:52:17 PM
Part of the problem is that the government has set things up such that due to tax benefits that it's frequently significantly cheaper to get your health care from your employer than privately.
I think things are improving somewhat, but the system is still biased far too much into the 'health insurance' assumptions.
For example, I would be ineligible for a HDHP and HSA because my work doesn't offer it. They might of fixed that by now, but when it first came out it wasn't available directly.
On another point, I find how people assume that businesses should provide their employees with health care bad.
Post by: wooderson on December 20, 2007, 05:27:43 AM
Quote
Canada has patients come down to the US for treatment all the time.
Canada has patients come down to the US for certain treatments.Canada would have far more Americans trucking up there for general treatment and drugs, were it legal.
The thing about your anecdotes is that, by every measure - quality of care and cost-related, the health systems of Canada and the UK are markedly superior to the US. The only objective way to claim supremacy is to focus on quality of care for those for whom money isn't an issue and ignore the bottom 40% - and most Americans don't envision as a health system that functions on have/have-not lines as being particularly successful.
Post by: Glock Glockler on December 20, 2007, 05:54:43 AM
You cannot collect Social Security without also accepting Medicare, this becomes a problem for someone who simply wants to buy their own and wants to work with a doc that doesn't deal with Medicare.
Post by: Paddy on December 20, 2007, 07:34:01 AM
Quote
You cannot collect Social Security without also accepting Medicare, this becomes a problem for someone who simply wants to buy their own and wants to work with a doc that doesn't deal with Medicare.
Part A Medicare, hospital insurance, (covers inpatient hospital care, operating rooms, and other medical services and supplies received while in the hospital. It doesn't pay your doctor.) comes premium free with Social Security.
Part B, medical insurance (covers doctors, outpatient hospital services, ambulance, diagnostic tests, lab services, outpatient therapy, durable medical equipment and supplies and a variety of other health services) is also called 'voluntary supplementary medical insurance' and is optional. Premiums are deducted from your SS check each month. You're automatically covered at age 65, but if you don't want Part B, return the card and notify SSI.
So, the bottom line is, collect SS, turn down Part B, and buy your own policy if you want. You CAN collect Social Security without accepting Medicare.
I'm curious why you care whether or not your doctor accepts Medicare?
Post by: Paddy on December 22, 2007, 01:04:52 PM
You're welcome.
Post by: De Selby on December 22, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
Nothing. Crickets chirping. Maybe they're all out buying their own health insurance, now that they know they can.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
Nah-we're all out working double shifts to pay off medical debts.