Brian, if you really want to push this argument go take a look at the numbers comparing growth in business vs. growth in government since World War II.
Not to say business is evil, but you are very correct that unchecked corperate interests aren't different at all from overbearing, bloated government.
... I'd suggest also looking up the Founding Fathers opinion of the East India Company.
Runningart2004 wrote:
More competition = less cost to the consumer.
Raise the medicare eligibility age. You can't solve our healthcare problems without addressing Medicare. Doing so would be like repainting a house with a roof that's about to collapse. Again...not a very politically wise decision. Medicare related business costs insurance companies a lot of time, money, and manpower.
If any of you think this bill is about healthcare or what's "right for US citizens" you are looney. This stopped being about healthcare the minute Obama and the Dems got control. After one party took all the keys to the playhouse it became all about politics and will remain so until the Dems take an asskicking in 2010.
Nothing "fair and balanced" will be done until the Dems lose some of their power because the GOP won't play ball. They may get something that includes the word "healthcare" pushed through, but at this point it won't be much because it will get raped in the Senate. Just get something through....then you can fix it later when the GOP is willing to play ball.
Alan
How can this topic of health care reform "cease" to exists once Obama and the Dems got control? What exactly was the Republican plan to reform our system and the insurance companies, I must surely have forgotten what they were working towards before the "socialists" took control.
refresh us all, please!
It won't be true reform because the GOP refused to participate at all in the reform - kept throwing more water in the pot, then voting no for a watered-down bill. The blue-dogs don't have a thing to brag about, they are merely sheep in GOP clothing. The GOP and the Blueball dogs destroyed the chance for real reform.
yes, now - they will shove through anything with Healthcare attached - and rightfully so...it's a start...at least...on a very serious issue which the GOP ignored and intended to go on ignoring for another 75 years. Obama, despite his political shortcoming, at least his scrotum isn't completely shriveled like the GOP. They start a war, then spend years "tending" to it so they don't have to deal with bigger issues within the border.
war mongers = GOP
Medical Student,, wrote:
That is far from the "bottom line." It's a superficiality, a distortion of terms and a distraction from the real issue.
No, it exactly the bottom line. The fact that people like yourself that claim to have association with the medical profession refuse to acknowledge that we are pounding twice as much as any developed nation into health care with by every measure substandard results is the ONLY ISSUE. The health industry is only interested in the status quo, which means continuing to produce substandard care for inflated prices.
We spent too much and don't get our money's worth when we do it. Period. That is an indisputable fact. Fact two, the cost of care varies widely across the country as does the types of treatments given for exactly the same problems. These variances aren't justified by any cost of living or regional disease patterns.
Why does the cost and likelihood of getting a c-section vary between Cary and Winston-Salem? Why is surgery at the Mayo Clinic cheaper than Brownsville, TX? Why did nearly every woman in a new-England town end up with a hysterectomy when women of the same age in a similar town 40 miles away did not? Why are you far more likely to receive expensive "defensive" tests when the doctors own the testing facility?
Hmmm?
If we paid rates similar to other developed nations then companies wouldn't feel compelled to drop health care coverage. Individuals wouldn't be feeling as much pressure to drop coverage. Medicare wouldn't be going broke.
So that is most definitely the bottom line.
You're telling me. I'm an independent contractor and don't have an employer absorbing my cost. If I could get away with catastrophic, I'd do it, but I need a full coverage plan. That's the real cost of full family medical insurance and believe me, I shopped around. It's easily my biggest monthly bill after the mortgage.
WOW! That's unreal...[/quote]
Squid wrote:
If I could get away with catastrophic, I'd do it, but I need a full coverage plan.
Why do you need full coverage? Unless someone in your family has a chronic illness needing maintenance drugs, you should get a plan with a big deductible. BTW, catastrophic coverage doesn't really exist any more.
Brian wrote:
And I never hear libertarians
I don't see how libertarians
You "hear" what you want to hear and "see" what you want to see. Thosee "sounds" and "sights" are products of your own mind and not valid perceptions of reality.
actuallly, keith stone, I can dispute your "indisputable fact". It drives me nuts when people use terms like this when making a statement like we "don't get our money's worth". You were stating your opinion on something very subjective. To someone who has received lifesaving care, the costs of healthcare may be very much worth it. not to mention that the costs of healthcare in this country have a very important embedded cost of innovation/research and development. The U.S. provides the world with some of the most cutting edge, revolutionizing treatments available. some of these new treatments are more expensive, but lead to a better clinical outcome. for this reason along with the fact that the u.s. population is more obese, you can't look at what other countries pay for health care.
my reform package would look something like this:
1) allow private insurers to sell insurance across state lines
2) tort reform
3) require insurance
4) provide insurance to those below the poverty level, homeless, etc.
5) audit medicare, medicaid to recover the billions of dollars stolen every year.
6) eliminate bureaucracy
7) do not allow insurers to drop people from coverage or deny them due to pre-existing conditions
disagree with any of this?
I do...
Please reconcile 3,4,5 and 7 with point 6.
Keith may be a bleeding heart liberal who I only agree with partially but he is certainly doing a much better job here than certain individuals (cough cough 'medical student').
keith stones madre wrote:
actuallly, keith stone, I can dispute your "indisputable fact". It drives me nuts when people use terms like this when making a statement like we "don't get our money's worth". You were stating your opinion on something very subjective. To someone who has received lifesaving care, the costs of healthcare may be very much worth it. not to mention that the costs of healthcare in this country have a very important embedded cost of innovation/research and development. The U.S. provides the world with some of the most cutting edge, revolutionizing treatments available. some of these new treatments are more expensive, but lead to a better clinical outcome. for this reason along with the fact that the u.s. population is more obese, you can't look at what other countries pay for health care.
my reform package would look something like this:
1) allow private insurers to sell insurance across state lines
2) tort reform
3) require insurance
4) provide insurance to those below the poverty level, homeless, etc.
5) audit medicare, medicaid to recover the billions of dollars stolen every year.
6) eliminate bureaucracy
7) do not allow insurers to drop people from coverage or deny them due to pre-existing conditions
disagree with any of this?
I'm pretty sure that #1 would cause health care to be Clear Channel'ed pretty quickly. Rather than having more competition you'd have the big players eat the small ones.
It's questionable as to how much tort reform would lower health care prices. Malpractice insurance, payouts, etc, are a pretty small percentage of the overall amount spent on healthcare in the US. If we can reduce frivolous lawsuits then I'm all in favor, but a simple "cap damages" (which comes up all too often) seems like a blanket solution to a complex problem.
#3 and #4 are missing something - suppose I'm not poor, but no one will sell me insurance or they won't sell it to me for a price that I can afford (history of cancer, diabetic, etc). Is #4 a general catch-all for people who can't afford the offerred insurance or is it just for the poor? If not, what about good, middle-class citizens who just plain can't afford the premiums because of pre-existing conditions?
As for reducing bureaucracy and waste, great, but how do you plan to find the waste without a bunch of people looking at every claim that comes in? Private healthcare companies have massive fraud departments that do this and I don't see why a government program would or could be any different. So, yeah, I'm all in favor, but it sounds like you are offerring to lower taxes, increase spending, and give everyone a pony.
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:Private healthcare companies have massive fraud departments that do this and I don't see why a government program would or could be any different.
Something completely missing from this debate is a discussion of transparency in government vs. transparency in business. Private companies, even ones who are beholden to shareholders, have no legal obligation to release or make their records public. That is, unless they are brought to court.
Here's the difference:
1) Angry individual asks state agency for records. Government must release them due to open records law.
2) Angry individual asks private company for records. Private can tell individual to take a hike.
That, my friends, is why private companies don't get picked apart like the government does. Business is more efficient at maximizing profit but it also doesn't have 200 million people able to pick it to death.
Any attempt to rely on the private sector need to be tempered with a mechanism that keeps pricing information free. I don't see Blue Cross Blue Shield lining up to do this anytime soon though...
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
I'd like to know what the supporters of this "reform" think it will accomplish? Specifically, what do you think it will do and how will it do it:
- to make health insurance more affordable for the individual
It will steal more from individuals, and fine people who don't pay the new health care TAX, that they take from us and give to the rich medical ass*oles.
- to lower the per capita cost of healthcare
No, it raises the per capita cost - see TAX & FINES
- to improve the quality of care
You must be joking. Health care sucks in this country.
- to increase longevity
Getting rid of the healthcare system is the only way to increase longevity.
- to pay for the reform without raising taxes
Hello.... they are going to raise taxes AND fine you for not signing up.
- to reduce the deficit
It will not reduce the deficit. A nice healthy devicit keeps the populace indebted to the rich.
Also, do you think someone who can afford to but refuses to buy insurance should be imprisoned?
Anyone who is taxing someone else should be imprisoned. The perpetrators of the health care tax/fine scheme should all be imprisoned immediately.
Mr. Price wrote:
Something completely missing from this debate is a discussion of transparency in government vs. transparency in business. Private companies, even ones who are beholden to shareholders, have no legal obligation to release or make their records public. That is, unless they are brought to court.
Here's the difference:
1) Angry individual asks state agency for records. Government must release them due to open records law.
2) Angry individual asks private company for records. Private can tell individual to take a hike.
That, my friends, is why private companies don't get picked apart like the government does. Business is more efficient at maximizing profit but it also doesn't have 200 million people able to pick it to death.
Any attempt to rely on the private sector need to be tempered with a mechanism that keeps pricing information free. I don't see Blue Cross Blue Shield lining up to do this anytime soon though...
And yet government is famous inefficient (or is it? Perhaps the inefficiency against which we rail is merely the things the government funds of which we don't approve).
Regardless, I think my point still holds. If you don't want fraud and waste then you have to have people looking for fraud and waste - and that means a bureaucracy. Perhaps the government will have a smaller one than private industry, perhaps it will be larger, but it has to exist either way.
keith stones madre wrote:
actuallly, keith stone, I can dispute your "indisputable fact". It drives me nuts when people use terms like this when making a statement like we "don't get our money's worth". You were stating your opinion on something very subjective.
It's not subjective at all. Every other country pays less than we do and received a better outcome. There are so many studies to back that up they are too numerous to list.
To someone who has received lifesaving care, the costs of healthcare may be very much worth it. not to mention that the costs of healthcare in this country have a very important embedded cost of innovation/research and development.
People in other countries receive lifesaving care too. For less money. The US is not the only doing research and innovation, so it's not legitimate to claim that we sholder allthose costs.
The U.S. provides the world with some of the most cutting edge, revolutionizing treatments available. some of these new treatments are more expensive, but lead to a better clinical outcome.
While the Us provides the world with *SOME* of the most cutting edge treatments, it doesn't provide all, and by no means do most of them produce a better clinical outcome. That's not an opinion either, just read some.
for this reason along with the fact that the u.s. population is more obese, you can't look at what other countries pay for health care.
Yes we can.
my reform package would look something like this:
1) allow private insurers to sell insurance across state lines
2) tort reform
3) require insurance
4) provide insurance to those below the poverty level, homeless, etc.
5) audit medicare, medicaid to recover the billions of dollars stolen every year.
6) eliminate bureaucracy
7) do not allow insurers to drop people from coverage or deny them due to pre-existing conditions
disagree with any of this?
Yes.
1) No evidence, if BCBS doesn't want to compete, who says anyone else will? They converted to for profit. Many other programs already cross state lines and don't offer any advantages.
2) Already evidence it does't reduce costs (see Texas)
3) In the current proposal in congress
4) see #3
5) Already happening, but conservatives are calling this too much regulation
6) Can't have #5 without bureaucracy so it's pretty much an empty slogan
7) In the current proposal in congress
Dohbama wrote:
If it were to lower the total cost of healthcare in this country, rather than simply reducing its growth rate, that would be impressive. You are supposed to just *drink* the koolaid, not SMOKE it! This legislation, while it may provide insurance for some, will do NOTHING to lower costs; indeed, by insuring the otherwise uninsurable (by banning declines for preexisting conditions, e.g.,) costs will BY DEFINITION increase. duh.
I have to agree w/ this (although the rest of the post kills me)
If there is nothing to change the incentives of the medical profession (basically - more is better), then it will only mean more total spending on healthcare.
Medicare is a managed care alternative that works. Doctors don't like it because they don't get paid as much vs private insurance. But it delivers.
Off the Grid wrote:
Medicare is a managed care alternative that works. Doctors don't like it because they don't get paid as much vs private insurance. But it delivers.
Is that a joke? Medicare is probably the single worst thing that ever happened to medicine in the US. The single worst thing. Docotors hate it for good reason; because it's a sinister scam designed to cheat them out of their incomes. But, of course, nobody cares about those filty rich bastard doctors- all that matters is minority children.
Income that is the result of cartel behavior on the part of the AMA and pharmaceutical companies
My father had an aortic valve replaced this summer.
He is covered by BC/BS and medicare. But they sent him a bill "by mistake".
It was a shakedown. He asked his friends and this medical center at a large private university in a large city in Southern CA (no names) regularly tries to charge patients extra. Some pay.
The prices are fixed between doctors and insurance companies - the market never participates. Medicine in the US is not a capitalist venture. Its rigged bidding.
People in the defense industry used to go to jail for bid rigging, but in medicine, its perfectly legal. thats insane.
Medicare is not a BAD price, but it is one that economist most likely determine would represent all costs and risks, even w/ malpractice insurance.
Retail stock brokers hate online trading, but you know what? Consumers are much better off as a result, and brokers make a lot less than they used to. Why is the US medical system trying pretend it is 1963?
Not sure why you would promote a system that was already 9x over budget 20 some years ago and is now 35-40x original actuarial assumptions, despite its "efficiency," fraud, waste, and abuse not withstanding. Many "elective" procedures in the US are considered mandatory and the US is far sicker than the rest of the world -- hence, the PRIMARY reason that it consumes 1/6 of GDP. And we do indeed subsidize much of the world's cheap medicine, for medical devices, for cancer treatment, for "cheap" drugs in Canada.
Heart disease and elective diabetes (read: type 2) consume 55% of the expense of medicare and growing. If your economic forecasts, which are roughly similar to my own, are correct, and structural unemployment remains stubbornly high for an inordinant amount of time, in part exacerbated by some of the inane policy implementation going on as we speak, do you really think people are going to start worrying more about what they eat, especially without any accountability and price transparency? See where this is going?
Yes, the Senate bill was "diluted" to get the votes and barely at that, but after the House introduces their version and the "compromise" process begins, that's when the public option language will be reinserted. That's the trojan horse, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to compete with the government and that $1.2 or $1.4 billion figure will be off by a multiplier of four, at least. This is crazy talk.
so selling insurance across state lines will cause big players to eat the small ones, but a 900 pound gorilla government option won't?
and to whomever suggested that government bureaucracy was better than having a private bureaucracy is out of their minds.
additionally, consider this point: if your claim is illegitimately denied by a private company, you can repeal or file suit. if the government denies your claim, you have no option. you cannot sue the federal government.
I am not sure who told you that doctors hate medicare. I work at a hospital/medical school and I hear a wide array of opinions on medicare from physicians. Most doctors I know like it as it is a reliable payer and would like to have a single payer with one set of paperwork. Some don't like it, and most of them are instinctively conservative and have an ideology that tells them beforehand what they should like and dislike.
Do you think doctors in single payer or even socialized medicine countries aren't rich?
Doctor's give rebates to private insurance all the time. the bill more than something really costs and when insurance will only ccver a certain amount, they write the rest off. Do you even look at your medical bills and insurance statements?
I hae a feeling many commenters on this board don't have much of a personal history in dealing with insurance companies. Medicare is just another insurance company. Single payer is not socialized medicine (I want to punch somebody when I hear that), it is government insurance. Hospitals and docs are still private.
Sagarin wrote:
Not sure why you would promote a system that was already 9x over budget 20 some years ago and is now 35-40x original actuarial assumptions, despite its "efficiency," fraud, waste, and abuse not withstanding. Many "elective" procedures in the US are considered mandatory and the US is far sicker than the rest of the world -- hence, the PRIMARY reason that it consumes 1/6 of GDP. And we do indeed subsidize much of the world's cheap medicine, for medical devices, for cancer treatment, for "cheap" drugs in Canada.
I don't know enough about the budget of Medicare to comment in detail. What I do know is that on $:outcome basis, it is more effective than private alternatives. The reason for this (as I have read) is that what constitutes, "required" treatment is managed, rather than a consumer decision.
It is obvious the US needs to change ideas about what is "necessary" e.g. prostate cancer treatments (doing nothing vs treatment).
If we subsidize cheap pharmaceuticals globally, can the same be said of the automobile industry - all the R&D happened in the US, was copied, and the extant domestic industries faced the 2nd highest OECD corporate tax rates, and so couldn't compete. Are we witnessing the same phenomena w/ US healthcare?
The complexity of the issue is mind-boggling, and is the millstone around the neck of the US. God help the world if/when creditors figure out the nature of the mess.