PDA

View Full Version : It looks like we're gonna need a lot more government programs...



Stoop Dawg
9/30/2009, 12:42 AM
So, the point of having a government run health care insurance plan is to "compete" with private companies and "keep them honest", right? After all, the only way to control costs in an industry is to provide non-profit, tax payer subsidized, government run competition. That much should be obvious.

Well, let's take a look at some other evil, profit-seeking companies that are stealing money from us poor consumers.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/companies/profits/

The top 2 companies are oil companies, so surely we need the government start drilling, refining, and selling oil, right?

3. Microsoft. Looks like Obama better start hiring some software devs to compete with them too.

4. GE? Who knows where the bulk of their profits even come from?

5. Wal-Mart. Yeah, we all hate Wal-Mart, so what we need are low-cost, non-profit, govt run (and tax-payer subsidized) retail mega-stores in every town in America.

6. J&J? Lump them in with GE. They're so diversified that I'm not sure even the govt can compete with them.

7. Ah, my personal favorite - AT&T. What a bunch of scum bags. We definitely need government run phone service in this country to knock them down a peg or two.

8. IBM - See Microsoft.

9. P&G - See J&J

10. HP - See IBM


Corporate profits are clearly too high in all of these companies so it only stands to reason that we need government competition to reign in these rogue corporations who are greedily fleecing innocent consumers.

Please write to your congress-person today and let them know that we need action on this immediately.

Thank you and God Bless.

yermom
9/30/2009, 03:34 AM
the difference is that i can avoid getting screwed by almost all of those companies.

even having insurance is no guarantee of not getting screwed by the current healthcare system.

Stoop Dawg
9/30/2009, 10:27 AM
Dude, you are being screwed by ALL of those companies.

The price of oil is factored into every single purchase you make. So is the cost of hardware/software used by those companies. Phone service in America is a racket. Other countries pay a fraction of what we pay for wireless service. And you may be able to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart, but I guaran-dam-tee you that wherever it is you *do* choose to shop has altered their pricing, offerings, and business practices to compete with Wal-Mart.

You are affected - directly or indirectly - by the activities of all of the companies on that list, whether you know it or not.

My Opinion Matters
9/30/2009, 10:38 AM
Healthcare should not be a profit-driven enterprise. Period.

1890MilesToNorman
9/30/2009, 10:39 AM
Yep and what product does the government produce? They don't have to have expertise in any industry but they do have the power to run them all if we let them.

Absolutely not an American Ideal is it? Keep supporting these idiots and you will get what you deserve.

My Opinion Matters
9/30/2009, 10:45 AM
Deregulate everything! What's the worst that could happen? CEO's and bankers have demonstrated that they operate with the utmost integrity, and always fully have the well-being of the American public as their top priority.

StoopTroup
9/30/2009, 10:50 AM
Yep and what product does the government produce? They don't have to have expertise in any industry but they do have the power to run them all if we let them.

Absolutely not an American Ideal is it? Keep supporting these idiots and you will get what you deserve.

Haven't Middlemen made lots of money for doing abso****inglutely nothing in this Country? :D :pop:

soonerscuba
9/30/2009, 10:50 AM
Healthcare doesn't work on the consumer choice model, because when rubber meets the road, rational choices aren't made in an ambulance.

The government has to have expertise by way of technical regulation. What private producer is going to represent the American populace in terms of interstate industry? I don't believe there is a safe method of regulating nuclear power, flight, highways, market certificates and food production that is going to come out of the private sector, or state government for that matter.

1890MilesToNorman
9/30/2009, 10:51 AM
Integrity, that's funny. Carry on.

yermom
9/30/2009, 10:57 AM
Dude, you are being screwed by ALL of those companies.

The price of oil is factored into every single purchase you make. So is the cost of hardware/software used by those companies. Phone service in America is a racket. Other countries pay a fraction of what we pay for wireless service. And you may be able to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart, but I guaran-dam-tee you that wherever it is you *do* choose to shop has altered their pricing, offerings, and business practices to compete with Wal-Mart.

You are affected - directly or indirectly - by the activities of all of the companies on that list, whether you know it or not.

these companies are exploiting our questionable laws, i don't see it as an analog to healthcare, other than the oil companies, i guess

1890MilesToNorman
9/30/2009, 11:03 AM
A corporation derives it's revenue from voluntary use of their product and they answer to their shareholders.

Government derives it's income from forced participation for no product production and it answers to corporate lobbyist.

Seems to me there should be a lot more regulation on government and not on business.

My Opinion Matters
9/30/2009, 11:08 AM
A corporation derives it's revenue from voluntary use of their product and they answer to their shareholders.

Government derives it's income from forced participation for no product production and it answers to corporate lobbyist.

Seems to me there should be a lot more regulation on government and not on business.

I'll put this as delicately as I know how...

Were you sleeping under a f*cking rock during the mortgage crisis and the collapse of the banking industry? Politics don't have a monopoly on oppurtunistic sleazeballs. They're just as pervasive in board rooms across America. Stop being so naive.

1890MilesToNorman
9/30/2009, 11:11 AM
And who acted irresponsibly by giving the thieves billions and billions of dollars instead of letting the failed banks to go out of business and issuing jail time for their actions.?

We have different philosophies and will never agree. So I'll call it a day for this thread. :D

My Opinion Matters
9/30/2009, 11:20 AM
And who acted irresponsibly by giving the thieves billions and billions of dollars instead of letting the failed banks to go out of business and issuing jail time for their actions.?

We have different philosophies and will never agree. So I'll call it a day for this thread. :D

I wasn't an Economics major, but I'm fairly certain allowing banks to collapse wouldn't have been the most prudent course of action. I'm also fairly certain a banking collapse actually occurred once before in America, with pretty disastrous consequences.

Stoop Dawg
9/30/2009, 12:43 PM
Healthcare should not be a profit-driven enterprise. Period.

Why not?

Regardless, let's assume that you are right. So force all "health care" companies to be non-profits. Problem solved?

Stoop Dawg
9/30/2009, 12:46 PM
Deregulate everything! What's the worst that could happen? CEO's and bankers have demonstrated that they operate with the utmost integrity, and always fully have the well-being of the American public as their top priority.

There is a big diference between regulation and direct government participation in the marketplace.

It appears to me that EVERYONE is on board with more regulation. It seems to be ONLY the Democrats who are pushing direct government involvement.

Let me ask you this. If it were possible to insure all of the uninsured people in this country and NOT LOSE MONEY, don't you think someone would have done it by now? What magical power does the Federal Government have to insure the uninsured - without using taxpayer money (as Obama proposes)?

Stoop Dawg
9/30/2009, 12:48 PM
Healthcare doesn't work on the consumer choice model, because when rubber meets the road, rational choices aren't made in an ambulance.

You're smarter than that. What percentage of total health care costs are the result of decisions made in an ambulance?


The government has to have expertise by way of technical regulation. What private producer is going to represent the American populace in terms of interstate industry? I don't believe there is a safe method of regulating nuclear power, flight, highways, market certificates and food production that is going to come out of the private sector, or state government for that matter.

Again, regulation <> direct participation.

Frozen Sooner
9/30/2009, 12:48 PM
A corporation derives it's revenue from voluntary use of their product and they answer to their shareholders.

It's been borne out empirically that boards and governors are emphatically do not act in the best interests of their shareholders, particularly under the current compensation models which incentivize risky behavior. AIG is a model case for this.

Frozen Sooner
9/30/2009, 12:50 PM
Why not?


Because there's massive market failures in information, pricing, entry, elasticity, etc etc.

You'll also notice, if you're honest, that no plan currently advocated has government in the health care business. It has the government in the health care insurance business.

Stoop Dawg
9/30/2009, 12:52 PM
I'll put this as delicately as I know how...

Were you sleeping under a f*cking rock during the mortgage crisis and the collapse of the banking industry? Politics don't have a monopoly on oppurtunistic sleazeballs. They're just as pervasive in board rooms across America. Stop being so naive.

Speaking of which, why didn't Obama lobby to set up "First Federal Government Bank" to lend directly to consumers? Why didn't he lobby to have the Federal Government issue credit cards to consumers instead of just passing regulations?

The notion that we need direct government involvement in health care in order to fix it is FALSE. The government's role is to set the rules that everyone must play by, not to be a player.

Stoop Dawg
9/30/2009, 12:58 PM
You'll also notice, if you're honest, that no plan currently advocated has government in the health care business. It has the government in the health care insurance business.

Indeed. The two seem to be used interchangably these days, but it is health care insurance that needs the most work. I'm 100% on board with passing regulations such as continuity of coverage, no maximum annual benefit, excluding pre-existing conditions, etc. However, I'm not sure that people realize that these regulations will increase the cost of health insurance not lower it.

Obama has done a good job of outlining exactly where he intends to increase costs, but not where he intends to decrease them. If he is able to save billions by reducing waste and fraud, well, then he should go ahead and get started on that now.

JohnnyMack
9/30/2009, 01:00 PM
The government's role is to set the rules that everyone must play by, not to be a player.

We can strip away all the rest of the **** in this thread and just use this part.

My Opinion Matters
9/30/2009, 03:01 PM
Why not?

1. Because there's empirical evidence it doesn't work, e.g. the clusterf*ck we're in now.

2. It's unethical.


Regardless, let's assume that you are right. So force all "health care" companies to be non-profits. Problem solved?

Now wait a minute, you can't have it both ways. Are you on the side of government intervention or corporate freedom? If it were only so simple, I think it would be a step in the right direction. It's totally unrealistic to assume you can force corporations to become non-profit organizations.

My Opinion Matters
9/30/2009, 03:09 PM
Let me ask you this. If it were possible to insure all of the uninsured people in this country and NOT LOSE MONEY, don't you think someone would have done it by now? What magical power does the Federal Government have to insure the uninsured - without using taxpayer money (as Obama proposes)?

You've put a lot of thought into this, but you're missing the point entirely. You can continue to deny the uninsured accesibility to affordable insurance until the apocalypse comes, but you cannot deny them healthcare. We're already paying for the healthcare costs of the uninsured.

yermom
9/30/2009, 03:49 PM
Indeed. The two seem to be used interchangably these days, but it is health care insurance that needs the most work. I'm 100% on board with passing regulations such as continuity of coverage, no maximum annual benefit, excluding pre-existing conditions, etc. However, I'm not sure that people realize that these regulations will increase the cost of health insurance not lower it.

Obama has done a good job of outlining exactly where he intends to increase costs, but not where he intends to decrease them. If he is able to save billions by reducing waste and fraud, well, then he should go ahead and get started on that now.

well, if everyone is forced to pay into the insurance game, and the insurance companies are going to be forced to cover things, then it sounds like the government is trying to get out of paying for health care for the uninsured

JohnnyMack
9/30/2009, 03:50 PM
You've put a lot of thought into this, but you're missing the point entirely. You can continue to deny the uninsured accesibility to affordable insurance until the apocalypse comes, but you cannot deny them healthcare. We're already paying for the healthcare costs of the uninsured.

Sorry to jump in here, but I don't want to deny anyone access to coverage. What I would like explained to me is how a public option would REDUCE costs and why it is the Federal Governments responsibility to go beyond defining the parameters within which the private sector should play*?

*Except of course for those not physically or mentally able to provide for themselves, DAV, etc.

49r
10/1/2009, 09:47 AM
JM, I believe the theory is - by adding the uninsured to the health care rolls, they anticipate the currently uninsured will no longer be forced to go to the emergency room for allergies. By simply reducing the cost of initial healthcare for these people we will effectively be saving money on the cost of healthcare for all.

But I'm not an expert or anything...

JohnnyMack
10/1/2009, 09:54 AM
JM, I believe the theory is - by adding the uninsured to the health care rolls, they anticipate the currently uninsured will no longer be forced to go to the emergency room for allergies. By simply reducing the cost of initial healthcare for these people we will effectively be saving money on the cost of healthcare for all.

But I'm not an expert or anything...

But if everyone has access to "free" healthcare wouldn't that mean that someone who previously didn't have insurance and just stayed home from work, self-medicated and rested through a sinus infection might instead go to a Dr.?

49r
10/1/2009, 10:06 AM
But if everyone has access to "free" healthcare wouldn't that mean that someone who previously didn't have insurance and just stayed home from work, self-medicated and rested through a sinus infection might instead go to a Dr.?

I don't think we're talking about free healthcare. We're talking about free (or cheap) health insurance for SOME people. If I'm not mistaken. The rest of us are going to have healtcare benes from our employer just like we do now and we would either self medicate or go to a Dr. just as we would now.

Again, that's how I understand it....I could be wrong.

JohnnyMack
10/1/2009, 10:09 AM
I'm sorry, I meant insurance, not healthcare. Wouldn't that insurance trigger more and more Dr.'s visits from people who wouldn't normally go, thereby increasing the overall cost?

49r
10/1/2009, 10:17 AM
I'm sorry, I meant insurance, not healthcare. Wouldn't that insurance trigger more and more Dr.'s visits from people who wouldn't normally go, thereby increasing the overall cost?

I doubt it. Just because a person is poor, homeless, unemployed, whatever doesn't mean they don't care about their health any more or less than anyone else. My guess is they'll be wanting to go to the doc as much as they do now. Only difference is, like I said before, they'll go to the clinic instead of the emergency room.

But I'm really not here to debate the relative merits of one method over another, personally I don't care what anyone else thinks about it. Just felt like answering what seemed to be an honest question.

My Opinion Matters
10/1/2009, 10:19 AM
Sorry to jump in here, but I don't want to deny anyone access to coverage. What I would like explained to me is how a public option would REDUCE costs and why it is the Federal Governments responsibility to go beyond defining the parameters within which the private sector should play*?

*Except of course for those not physically or mentally able to provide for themselves, DAV, etc.

It will reduce costs because an attempt to recover losses sustained from treating the uninsured is the principle culprit in constantly escalating healtchare expenses. Why do you think it costs $50 for an aspirin, or $2000 for a CT scan when you're in the hospital? Again, I'm not an economics expert, but you don't need one to tell you those aren't indicative of fair market prices. Sure, your health insurance company absorbs most of that upfront cost for you, but make no mistake, that cost is passed on to you. How much have your insurance premiums increased the last few years? How much has your deductible increased? This is a direct result of absorbing the costs of the uninsured. It's caught in a downward spiral because the higher the cost of insurance, there are more people who elect to be uninsured.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about "universal" health care. It already exists. And guess what? For a large number of uninsured, it's already free. Not free as in the taxpayers are picking up the bill, free as in free. What the system needs to get these costs under control is universal reimbursement.

Frozen Sooner
10/1/2009, 11:06 AM
I'm sorry, I meant insurance, not healthcare. Wouldn't that insurance trigger more and more Dr.'s visits from people who wouldn't normally go, thereby increasing the overall cost?

What's more expensive to treat? A hangnail, or whole arm gangrene? One of the arguments is that if people have insurance they're much more likely to see the doctor before an easy-to-treat problem becomes something difficult to treat. As MoM pointed out, the "uninsured" actually do have emergency room coverage.

Is it more cost-effective to treat bronchitis at a family practice or in an emergency room? Another argument is that the emergency-room model creates incentives to get minor ailments treated in the emergency room because they can't be turned away for lack of insurance. Is that an efficient, cost-effective allocation of resources?

To me, the issue is one of overall economic efficiency, not one of any mythical "right" to health care. Health insurance has significant market failures (see comments above) that prevent a competitive model from coming to an efficient allocation of resources.

JohnnyMack
10/1/2009, 11:10 AM
It will reduce costs because an attempt to recover losses sustained from treating the uninsured is the principle culprit in constantly escalating healtchare expenses. Why do you think it costs $50 for an aspirin, or $2000 for a CT scan when you're in the hospital? Again, I'm not an economics expert, but you don't need one to tell you those aren't indicative of fair market prices. Sure, your health insurance company absorbs most of that upfront cost for you, but make no mistake, that cost is passed on to you. How much have your insurance premiums increased the last few years? How much has your deductible increased? This is a direct result of absorbing the costs of the uninsured. It's caught in a downward spiral because the higher the cost of insurance, there are more people who elect to be uninsured.

There's a lot of misinformation out there about "universal" health care. It already exists. And guess what? For a large number of uninsured, it's already free. Not free as in the taxpayers are picking up the bill, free as in free. What the system needs to get these costs under control is universal reimbursement.

You seem to be talking more about shifting the overall burden than reducing the overall cost. If X = the total cost of healthcare in our nation for a year. How is what you're talking about going to reduce X?

My Opinion Matters
10/1/2009, 11:14 AM
You seem to be talking more about shifting the overall burden than reducing the overall cost. If X = the total cost of healthcare in our nation for a year. How is what you're talking about going to reduce X?

Because, Johnny, CT scans shouldn't actually cost $2,000.

sooner n houston
10/1/2009, 12:26 PM
If this would save us so much money why does it far exceed any projected cost in every other nation that has tried it? If you look at other nations you see one failed system after another.

Isn't that why they wind up doing the 'granny must die' type senario? To save cost.

JohnnyMack
10/1/2009, 12:44 PM
Because, Johnny, CT scans shouldn't actually cost $2,000.

If you drive down the cost of a CT scan, but more people are insured and more people are getting them, how are you going to drive down the overall cost?

I'm a big fan of the Government spending dollars on education programs regarding health and wellness. The more educated a society is the healthier it is.

49r
10/1/2009, 12:46 PM
How many times does one have to ask the same question worded in slightly different ways - and get the same response every time - before one stops?

I usually stop at once.

1890MilesToNorman
10/1/2009, 12:55 PM
The more educated a society is the healthier it is.

Then you must agree that our education system of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's was much better than todays? :confused:

JohnnyMack
10/1/2009, 01:04 PM
How many times does one have to ask the same question worded in slightly different ways - and get the same response every time - before one stops?

I usually stop at once.

:D

Eat it.

The reason a CT scan is billed out at 2k a pop is to absorb the cost of people who don't or can't pay for those procedures. If everyone has insurance, you're not going to magically reduce the number of those procedures that are done, you're just going to shift the cost out to all the people who now have insurance. You haven't cut costs, you've reallocated the burden.

Turd_Ferguson
10/1/2009, 01:04 PM
How many times does one have to ask the same question worded in slightly different ways - and get the same response every time - before one stops?

I usually stop at once.Who are you talking about:confused:

My Opinion Matters
10/1/2009, 01:12 PM
:D

Eat it.

The reason a CT scan is billed out at 2k a pop is to absorb the cost of people who don't or can't pay for those procedures. If everyone has insurance, you're not going to magically reduce the number of those procedures that are done, you're just going to shift the cost out to all the people who now have insurance. You haven't cut costs, you've reallocated the burden.

You get it, but somehow, you still don't get it.

49r
10/1/2009, 01:20 PM
:D

Eat it.

The reason a CT scan is billed out at 2k a pop is to absorb the cost of people who don't or can't pay for those procedures. If everyone has insurance, you're not going to magically reduce the number of those procedures that are done, you're just going to shift the cost out to all the people who now have insurance. You haven't cut costs, you've reallocated the burden.

Certainly. But that's the idea innit? Reallocate the burden so that we can take control of who is regulating prices away from the profit driven entities somewhat and help get spiraling costs ($50 Tylenol, etc.) under control.

In any event this whole situation has turned into such a massive cluster**** that not only will we continue to have horrible health care in the US, but it will continue to cost us an unreasonable amount of $$$ to administer. Whether a healthcare bill passes or not.

Frozen Sooner
10/1/2009, 01:23 PM
If this would save us so much money why does it far exceed any projected cost in every other nation that has tried it? If you look at other nations you see one failed system after another.

Failed by what measure? Give me an objective measure, please, not a "Some guy I knew had to wait 3 years to get a colonoscopy" story. Why do people who have such systems fail to eliminate them?


Isn't that why they wind up doing the 'granny must die' type senario? To save cost.

Isn't that why insurers wind up doing the "granny must die" type scenarios under our current sys...oh, right. Granny can't get private insurance under our present situation. She's already covered by government health care.

1890MilesToNorman
10/1/2009, 01:27 PM
Just like when the Fed took over airport security, American Granny gets the full body search and the Arab is waved through. Anyone else see this scenario?

Frozen Sooner
10/1/2009, 01:29 PM
Do you really not understand why, for random searches to be effective deterrents, they actually have to be random?

1890MilesToNorman
10/1/2009, 01:33 PM
I profile like anyone with common sense would do!

I can see Granny sitting in the ER trying to prove she is covered and the illegal being waved right through so the hospital covers the PC side of things.

JohnnyMack
10/1/2009, 01:33 PM
Certainly. But that's the idea innit? Reallocate the burden so that we can take control of who is regulating prices away from the profit driven entities somewhat and help get spiraling costs ($50 Tylenol, etc.) under control.


You're really not making any sense. At least you're not defending the argument that costs will be driven down.

Frozen Sooner
10/1/2009, 01:36 PM
I profile like anyone with common sense would do!

So the answer is no, then. Do you really think terrorists are so ****ing stupid that they wouldn't notice lil' ol' granny never being hassled and they couldn't find some lil' ol' granny-looking person to carry a bomb? Did you happen to notice what happened in Israel when they stopped looking at women as potential suicide bombers?


I can see Granny sitting in the ER trying to prove she is covered and the illegal being waved right through so the hospital covers the PC side of things.

Under a universal health care system, why would there be any need to prove that you have insurance before admittance? The hospital could proceed under a reasonable assumption that there was coverage.

Further, ERs triage on urgency of care, not on whether someone has insurance or not.

1890MilesToNorman
10/1/2009, 01:49 PM
Hey, Granny has private insurance that Granny has to prove while Juan Diablo says "me no speak English" so he is defiantly covered.

You sure don't pay much attention to how these things work do ya?

Frozen Sooner
10/1/2009, 01:53 PM
Hey, Granny has private insurance that Granny has to prove while Juan Diablo says "me no speak English" so he is defiantly covered.

You sure don't pay much attention to how these things work do ya?

Um, no. Granny has Medicare, which is public insurance.

You sure don't pay attention to how these things work, do ya?

Again, emergency rooms are triaged based on urgency of care. If you walk in with an acute, life-threatening condition, they're not making you sit there with a sucking chest wound while you find your insurance card.

okiewaker
10/1/2009, 02:55 PM
This healthcare bill, something wrong with it.In Gov Dems are fighting each other over it, vast majority of Repubs don't want it along with the majority of people, the Powers That Be refuse to put it online so we can see it, and the CBO can't put a price tag it because they can't see it as well. Something wrong. I don't know maybe it's me. I'm trying to look at it objectively. It just seems they are trying to pass this thing too quickly and may be trying to hide things that people need to know. It just feels wrong. JMO

FaninAma
10/2/2009, 04:46 PM
Healthcare should not be a profit-driven enterprise. Period.

Thank you for your reply Mr. Marx.

I will agree that the middlemen insurance companies
need to be reigned in or eliminated.

Btw, what sector do you work in? Maybe
we need to deemwhatever sector it is as a
"right" meaning the profit motive
should be removed from that sector, also.

1890MilesToNorman
10/2/2009, 05:42 PM
Btw, what sector do you work in? Maybe
we need to deemwhatever sector it is as a
"right" meaning the profit motive
should be removed from that sector, also.

Let's not go down that road! I have investment property and when they deem housing to be a right there goes my profit. And also any incentive to buy more. :eek:

If having a reliable computer and network becomes a right then look out, there's a long chain of profit centers out of bidness right there.

Oh what a slippery slope we are looking over and some have already been thrown over.

My Opinion Matters
10/2/2009, 05:42 PM
Thank you for your reply Mr. Marx.

I will agree that the middlemen insurance companies
need to be reigned in or eliminated.

Btw, what sector do you work in? Maybe
we need to deemwhatever sector it is as a
"right" meaning the profit motive
should be removed from that sector, also.

Healthcare.

Frozen Sooner
10/2/2009, 06:07 PM
This healthcare bill, something wrong with it.In Gov Dems are fighting each other over it, vast majority of Repubs don't want it along with the majority of people, the Powers That Be refuse to put it online so we can see it, and the CBO can't put a price tag it because they can't see it as well. Something wrong. I don't know maybe it's me. I'm trying to look at it objectively. It just seems they are trying to pass this thing too quickly and may be trying to hide things that people need to know. It just feels wrong. JMO

I personally don't support the health insurance bill as currently constituted and would vote against it were I a congressman. This bill is a piece of ****.

olevetonahill
10/2/2009, 11:46 PM
Ive never understood it

Stoop Dawg
10/26/2009, 04:23 PM
It looks like health insurance companies may not be the greedy "death panels" that some people think they are:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fact_check_health_insurance

And FS, you can't compare Medicare to a govt run health insurance program. Medicare is MANDATORY - it's essentially a tax. My parents tried to opt-out when they retired and they were told it was impossible.

Look, if "universal coverage" is what you're after, then just create govt regulations that produce universal coverage - namely, don't let insurance companies ask about prior medical history when signing up new participants. The govt could also set a minimum standard of coverage that all health insurance plans must meet.

Whatever it is that you think the govt plan will do to magically reduce health care costs - pass it as regulations on the current industry instead. I'm not anti-govt regulation, I'm anti-direct-govt involvement.

Stoop Dawg
10/26/2009, 04:26 PM
The reason a CT scan is billed out at 2k a pop is to absorb the cost of people who don't or can't pay for those procedures. If everyone has insurance, you're not going to magically reduce the number of those procedures that are done, you're just going to shift the cost out to all the people who now have insurance. You haven't cut costs, you've reallocated the burden.

I think the argument is that some of the uninsured people who currently go to get a CT scan and don't pay for it will somehow avert the need for ever getting a CT scan by taking some sort of preventative measures earlier in life.

Stoop Dawg
10/26/2009, 04:31 PM
Lastly (for now), I have a question for you health care industry types.

It seems to me that the price of health care in this country is so high partially because it's so cheap everywhere else. Why do drugs cost so much here? Because they are sold so cheap in Canada. The drug companies and equipment mfgrs use the US as their profit center. I assume there is *some* profit on drugs sold in Canada (or they wouldn't offer them there), but the bulk of the profit is made in the USA.

Assuming that is true, what happens if we remove the profit from drugs & equipment sold in the USA? Do drug company profits fall? Do some of them go out of business completely? Of the ones who are able to stay in business, how is their research affected? Are we prepared to have the govt fund *all* medical research? Where will the govt get the money to do that? From the new govt run health insurance plan? Doesn't that put us back in the same boat we're in now?

JohnnyMack
10/26/2009, 05:08 PM
I think the argument is that some of the uninsured people who currently go to get a CT scan and don't pay for it will somehow avert the need for ever getting a CT scan by taking some sort of preventative measures earlier in life.

If that's true why do we need a government run health care system? Seems like we need government funded education programs geared at increasing the education level of its people to the risks of poor diet and lack of exercise.

Stoop Dawg
10/26/2009, 10:11 PM
If that's true why do we need a government run health care system? Seems like we need government funded education programs geared at increasing the education level of its people to the risks of poor diet and lack of exercise.

I think their argument would probably target ailments that fall between "diet and exercise" and "emergency room". So, things that you can't self-diagnose, but that if caught early could be remedied cheaper than if caught later.

I'm not doctor, but I personally think that those types of diagnoses aren't all that common. Maybe Fan or one of the other doctors can chime in on that. I'm just not all that certain that it adds up to a trillian dollars. And I don't think the GAO does either.

Curly Bill
10/26/2009, 10:16 PM
The government's role is to set the rules that everyone must play by, not to be a player.

Ding...Ding...Ding....WINNAR!!!!!

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 01:21 PM
Healthcare should not be a profit-driven enterprise. Period.

Wow, there are so many things wrong in this thread, starting with this. Do they not teach economics at OU anymore?

There are so many ways to attack this, I can't type fast enough. How about--

Do you want Cancer to be cured? (I'll take that at a "yes") Do you want the best and brightest trying to cure it? (I'll take that at a "yes" as well) Are you going to force them at the point of a gun to cure it? No? They should just do it out of the goodness of their hearts? For your own good right? What about their needs? What if they want to do something else with their lives? I don't think I need to draw you a picture here, but you can see where it goes.

Forget about cancer--do you want the best and brightest to be doctors? Follow same logic.

I love when people think that if you remove the profit incentive from something, that they expect lower costs. You will end up with a worse product and higher costs--take it to the bank.

Any idea what an OB/GYN pays for liability insurance? It varies on the state, but most states are well over $100,000 per year in premiums. The vast majority of suits against doctors are frivolous--but of course create much of the costs to buy insurance. We could easily cut these costs way down with tort reform. Ask why the Dems won't touch that. Lower costs for docs, lower health care costs.

There are, last I saw, 1,400 health insurers in the US. We need more? How about just letting them compete across state borders? Why do we need BCBS of OK, BCBS of TX, BCBS of MD, BCBS of NJ, ect. The profit margins on these companies are not excessive--by definition how could they be with so many companies? Once again, Econ 101. How will a government run public insurer help this situation? Please explain.

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 01:28 PM
I'll put this as delicately as I know how...

Were you sleeping under a f*cking rock during the mortgage crisis and the collapse of the banking industry? Politics don't have a monopoly on oppurtunistic sleazeballs. They're just as pervasive in board rooms across America. Stop being so naive.

Apparently you were. Please search "Barney Frank" and "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac."

Where did these "risky" loans come from that created the mortgage crisis? They came from government anti-redlining laws, forced acceptance at Fannie and Freddie, and pressure from Washington on the banks. This was a government created crisis due to government intervention. Barney Frank started it, and Bush was too big of a ***** to stop it because he liked touting that home ownership was it's highest ever. It clearly shouldn't have been.

The other culprit here are the rating agencies for not appropriately rating the CMOs correctly--gets us way off topic though.

OklahomaTuba
10/27/2009, 01:32 PM
Here's an idear, if a STATE wants to have socialized heath care, let them do it. Keep the federales out of it!

That way, we will know EXACTLY how much this POS will cost, since the state's can't just print more money and sell more debt to china to pay for it.

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 01:37 PM
You get it, but somehow, you still don't get it.

Do not be deterred Johnny, you are right.

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 01:49 PM
Lastly (for now), I have a question for you health care industry types.

It seems to me that the price of health care in this country is so high partially because it's so cheap everywhere else. Why do drugs cost so much here? Because they are sold so cheap in Canada. The drug companies and equipment mfgrs use the US as their profit center. I assume there is *some* profit on drugs sold in Canada (or they wouldn't offer them there), but the bulk of the profit is made in the USA.

Assuming that is true, what happens if we remove the profit from drugs & equipment sold in the USA? Do drug company profits fall? Do some of them go out of business completely? Of the ones who are able to stay in business, how is their research affected? Are we prepared to have the govt fund *all* medical research? Where will the govt get the money to do that? From the new govt run health insurance plan? Doesn't that put us back in the same boat we're in now?

Many of the drugs sold in the US have a 90-95% profit margin. The returns on drugs like Zocor, Nexium, Plavix and Lipitor make huge profits. Of course for every Lipitor, there are many failures. Take away the profit incentive on the successes, and you discourage R&D.

How much does Canada affect this--hard to say. They are clearly getting a "free ride" on the back of the American consumer. If the US were to mirror Canada, many of the major drug companies would shift from a manufacturing and research and development function, to a much more manufacturing focus.

The short term results wouldn't be drastic, but 10-15 years from now, we would not see the advancements we will see with the current system. If the incentive to take risk and spend money developing a drug is gone as the profit potential is not there, no drugs requiring risky (low success prob) or large investments will be developed.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 02:06 PM
Wow, there are so many things wrong in this thread, starting with this. Do they not teach economics at OU anymore?

There are so many ways to attack this, I can't type fast enough. How about--

Do you want Cancer to be cured? (I'll take that at a "yes") Do you want the best and brightest trying to cure it? (I'll take that at a "yes" as well) Are you going to force them at the point of a gun to cure it? No? They should just do it out of the goodness of their hearts? For your own good right? What about their needs? What if they want to do something else with their lives? I don't think I need to draw you a picture here, but you can see where it goes.

Forget about cancer--do you want the best and brightest to be doctors? Follow same logic.

I love when people think that if you remove the profit incentive from something, that they expect lower costs. You will end up with a worse product and higher costs--take it to the bank.

Any idea what an OB/GYN pays for liability insurance? It varies on the state, but most states are well over $100,000 per year in premiums. The vast majority of suits against doctors are frivolous--but of course create much of the costs to buy insurance. We could easily cut these costs way down with tort reform. Ask why the Dems won't touch that. Lower costs for docs, lower health care costs.

There are, last I saw, 1,400 health insurers in the US. We need more? How about just letting them compete across state borders? Why do we need BCBS of OK, BCBS of TX, BCBS of MD, BCBS of NJ, ect. The profit margins on these companies are not excessive--by definition how could they be with so many companies? Once again, Econ 101. How will a government run public insurer help this situation? Please explain.

Oh, good. We're resucitating threads thought to be dead and forgotten. How apropos.

Are you familiar with the concept of conflict of interest?Well, here let me help you out.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-15-skid-row_x.htm

http://blog.taragana.com/n/fla-hospital-defends-deportation-of-brain-injured-guatemalan-patient-without-health-insurance-118666/

Although these are most extreme and most publicized examples, this phenomena is by no means unique. This happens on a varying scale to thousands of Americans everyday. By the way, I'm not comdemning the hospitals. They're put into no-win situations like these because they're forced to play by the same set of broken rules. Healthcare providers and patients alike are forced to make decisions that no one should ever have to make. It's not ethical. It's not moral. It just happens to be legal.

I'll ask you one simple question and this will reveal your position and understanding of this issue. Should a patient on life support have the plug pulled because they can't afford the bill? What if it's a premature child born to immigrants with no insurance? Should that child be left to die?

Obviously if you answer yes, you're a hideous monster. If you answer no, well, welcome back to the grown-up discussion.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 02:08 PM
Apparently you were. Please search "Barney Frank" and "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac."

Where did these "risky" loans come from that created the mortgage crisis? They came from government anti-redlining laws, forced acceptance at Fannie and Freddie, and pressure from Washington on the banks. This was a government created crisis due to government intervention. Barney Frank started it, and Bush was too big of a ***** to stop it because he liked touting that home ownership was it's highest ever. It clearly shouldn't have been.

The other culprit here are the rating agencies for not appropriately rating the CMOs correctly--gets us way off topic though.

It's called predatory lending.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 02:18 PM
Don't rush, Bermuda. I'm not expecting your responses for at least a month, well after the discussion has ended/been forgotten.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2009, 02:23 PM
It's called predatory lending.

You can't blame Wall Street and NOT blame Washington. Think of it like organized crime. The investment banks (Goldman, et al) are the crime families and the politicians in DC are the crooked cops who are on the take.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 02:27 PM
You can't blame Wall Street and NOT blame Washington. Think of it like organized crime. The investment banks (Goldman, et al) are the crime families and the politicians in DC are the crooked cops who are on the take.

Yeah, I'll give you a pass on this because this thread is like 2 months old, but that was my original point.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2009, 02:29 PM
Yeah, I'll give you a pass on this because this thread is like 2 months old, but that was my original point.

:D

I didn't look back that far.

Frozen Sooner
10/27/2009, 02:35 PM
Apparently you were. Please search "Barney Frank" and "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac."

Where did these "risky" loans come from that created the mortgage crisis? They came from government anti-redlining laws, forced acceptance at Fannie and Freddie, and pressure from Washington on the banks. This was a government created crisis due to government intervention. Barney Frank started it, and Bush was too big of a ***** to stop it because he liked touting that home ownership was it's highest ever. It clearly shouldn't have been.

The other culprit here are the rating agencies for not appropriately rating the CMOs correctly--gets us way off topic though.

You're also ignoring the effect of naked credit default swaps and the effect of Chinese investment in the CMO market. And that government regulators ignored the systemic risk inherent in the major banks. And that the repeal of Glass-Steagall lowered the Chinese wall between banks and investment houses. And that banks who were writing CMOs were failing to transfer risk by holding on to the equity tranches of CMOs and only selling the mezzanine, senior, and supersenior tranches. And so on.

Fannie and Freddie made some bad loans, certainly. The problems in the financial markets went WAY beyond what was going on there. I'm on board with them not having clean hands, but the monkey business in the credit derivative market wasn't anywhere near their fault.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2009, 02:51 PM
Oh, good. We're resucitating threads thought to be dead and forgotten. How apropos.

Feel free not to participate. Your comments are mostly snide - if not outright inflamatory - anyway. Some of us don't have the time to check in here every minute of every day.


I'll ask you one simple question and this will reveal your position and understanding of this issue. Should a patient on life support have the plug pulled because they can't afford the bill? What if it's a premature child born to immigrants with no insurance? Should that child be left to die?

Obviously if you answer yes, you're a hideous monster. If you answer no, well, welcome back to the grown-up discussion.

I guess I'm in the "grown up" discussion, but I still don't want a govt-run health insurance program. I guess I'm just not smart enough to get your point. Maybe you can spell it out for me.

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 02:53 PM
Don't rush, Bermuda. I'm not expecting your responses for at least a month, well after the discussion has ended/been forgotten.

Well I do have a job, but you won't have to wait a month.

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 03:02 PM
You're also ignoring the effect of naked credit default swaps and the effect of Chinese investment in the CMO market. And that government regulators ignored the systemic risk inherent in the major banks. And that the repeal of Glass-Steagall lowered the Chinese wall between banks and investment houses. And that banks who were writing CMOs were failing to transfer risk by holding on to the equity tranches of CMOs and only selling the mezzanine, senior, and supersenior tranches. And so on.

Fannie and Freddie made some bad loans, certainly. The problems in the financial markets went WAY beyond what was going on there. I'm on board with them not having clean hands, but the monkey business in the credit derivative market wasn't anywhere near their fault.

Agree with most of your points--this is a complicated issue. However, I submit that without Fannie and Freddie and the encouragement from government to stuff them with ****, we never get into this situation. The point is, Frannie and Freddie started this.

Opinion mentions predatory lending. Well, if there are consequences to bad loans, the predatory lending never happens. If you can go out and get someone to buy a mortgage they can't afford, and then be able to stuff it in the government's crap pile, it is going to happen. When you have to hold onto it or convince someone else to take risk on it, it will not happen.

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 03:12 PM
Oh, good. We're resucitating threads thought to be dead and forgotten. How apropos.

Are you familiar with the concept of conflict of interest?Well, here let me help you out.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-15-skid-row_x.htm

http://blog.taragana.com/n/fla-hospital-defends-deportation-of-brain-injured-guatemalan-patient-without-health-insurance-118666/

Although these are most extreme and most publicized examples, this phenomena is by no means unique. This happens on a varying scale to thousands of Americans everyday. By the way, I'm not comdemning the hospitals. They're put into no-win situations like these because they're forced to play by the same set of broken rules. Healthcare providers and patients alike are forced to make decisions that no one should ever have to make. It's not ethical. It's not moral. It just happens to be legal.

I'll ask you one simple question and this will reveal your position and understanding of this issue. Should a patient on life support have the plug pulled because they can't afford the bill? What if it's a premature child born to immigrants with no insurance? Should that child be left to die?

Obviously if you answer yes, you're a hideous monster. If you answer no, well, welcome back to the grown-up discussion.

I'm still waiting for a response to my post that you cited. Answering questions with irrelevant questions is not an answer. Citing patients being dumped on streets is not a reason to make healthcare a non-profit scheme.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 03:18 PM
I'm still waiting for a response to my post that you cited. Answering questions with irrelevant questions is not an answer. Citing patients being dumped on streets is not a reason to make healthcare a non-profit scheme.

:confused:

You don't see the connection?

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 03:25 PM
Here's an idear, if a STATE wants to have socialized heath care, let them do it. Keep the federales out of it!

That way, we will know EXACTLY how much this POS will cost, since the state's can't just print more money and sell more debt to china to pay for it.

Well, Massachusetts does have a state plan. It taxes (or I believe takes tax deductions away) for those who don't buy coverage and, in Mass's ultimate wisdom, should. I encourage you to research it, although the program is only a couple of years old. I'd love to see what the homeless populations of Mass and the surrounding states has done over the last couple of years.

Bourbon St Sooner
10/27/2009, 03:34 PM
What's more expensive to treat? A hangnail, or whole arm gangrene? One of the arguments is that if people have insurance they're much more likely to see the doctor before an easy-to-treat problem becomes something difficult to treat. As MoM pointed out, the "uninsured" actually do have emergency room coverage.

Is it more cost-effective to treat bronchitis at a family practice or in an emergency room? Another argument is that the emergency-room model creates incentives to get minor ailments treated in the emergency room because they can't be turned away for lack of insurance. Is that an efficient, cost-effective allocation of resources?

To me, the issue is one of overall economic efficiency, not one of any mythical "right" to health care. Health insurance has significant market failures (see comments above) that prevent a competitive model from coming to an efficient allocation of resources.

Truthfully, there's no real cost difference between treating bronchitis at a family practice vs an emergency room. You get charged more at an ER, because of all of the people that go to the ER and don't pay. There's a fallacy that if you can lower the number of people that go to the ER, you'll lower total cost, but in the end all you've done is shifted where the costs are incurred as JM said.

I'm not buying the cut-gangrene argument, because I don't think those scenarios are a large makeup of the cost increases we're seeing. In fact, I'll bet that in 2/3 of such cases the people actually have insurance but didn't want to go to the doctor.

What we really need to do is get away from employer provided health care and go to a system of medical savings accounts and high deductible insurance policies. The system being proposed only expands employer provided coverage.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 03:39 PM
I guess I'm in the "grown up" discussion, but I still don't want a govt-run health insurance program. I guess I'm just not smart enough to get your point. Maybe you can spell it out for me.

The point everyone keeps dancing around is how do we pay for it?And no, I'm not talking about Obamacare. I'm talking about the status quo. Do you want to pull the plug on uninsured premature infants? Well, neither do I, but how are we going to pay for it? This is what is at the heart of the issue. I've made this point ad nauseam, but I'll reiterate--IRRECOVERABLE LOSSES SUSTAINED FROM TREATING THE UNINSURED IS THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN CONSTANTLY RISING HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

If you don't support reform, what's the answer? Turn the sick away and let them die? Or do you wish to continue subsidizing their care through a series of middlemen?

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 03:47 PM
:confused:

You don't see the connection?

I see your connection. Profit = evil. I do not subscribe to your morals.

Profit has created the society we live in today. Without it, we are pulling around wagons and wearing clothes without buttons and ugly black hats, and dying at age 45. The barn raising parties are great though.

Let's follow your logic to its conclusion though. So apparently if we get rid of profits in health care, nobody will be turned out into the street, and everyone gets the care they need. What if the hospital goes out of business? It has to make some money, right? It needs income. If that income just meets expenses it didn't make a profit. Now, if that income is less than expenses, what happens? Do we turn away patients so that the hospital can survive, or is it better to just let it fail. The logic of getting rid of profit in the health arena does not lead to the conclusion that patients aren't denied care they desire.

Let's tackle this from a different angle. My roommate in college did very well--3.9 GPA or so. Smart guy. He had the opportunity to work on Wall Street (with me by the way) right out of college and make a very nice living. He wanted, what he considered, a better living by going to medical school and becoming a doctor. He wanted a Porsche (incidentally, he now drives a Viper, but that isn't important). Without the possibility of a Porsche, though, he would have taken the job on Wall Street. Why go spend 50K+ a year to go to school for 4 more years, plus his 5 years of residency when he could have had the Porsche almost immediately out of school? I want guys (and girls) like my roommate choosing to go to medical school.

Check your premise--profit is not evil.

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 03:52 PM
What we really need to do is get away from employer provided health care and go to a system of medical savings accounts and high deductible insurance policies.

YES! But that doesn't give Obama the control he is after.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 03:55 PM
I see your connection. Profit = evil. I do not subscribe to your morals.

Profit has created the society we live in today. Without it, we are pulling around wagons and wearing clothes without buttons and ugly black hats, and dying at age 45. The barn raising parties are great though.

Let's follow your logic to its conclusion though. So apparently if we get rid of profits in health care, nobody will be turned out into the street, and everyone gets the care they need. What if the hospital goes out of business? It has to make some money, right? It needs income. If that income just meets expenses it didn't make a profit. Now, if that income is less than expenses, what happens? Do we turn away patients so that the hospital can survive, or is it better to just let it fail. The logic of getting rid of profit in the health arena does not lead to the conclusion that patients aren't denied care they desire.

Let's tackle this from a different angle. My roommate in college did very well--3.9 GPA or so. Smart guy. He had the opportunity to work on Wall Street (with me by the way) right out of college and make a very nice living. He wanted, what he considered, a better living by going to medical school and becoming a doctor. He wanted a Porsche (incidentally, he now drives a Viper, but that isn't important). Without the possibility of a Porsche, though, he would have taken the job on Wall Street. Why go spend 50K+ a year to go to school for 4 more years, plus his 5 years of residency when he could have had the Porsche almost immediately out of school? I want guys (and girls) like my roommate choosing to go to medical school.

Check your premise--profit is not evil.

Nice attempt to manipulate my words, but I never said profit was evil. It just doesn't belong in the healthcare equation. For the same reasons it doesn't belong in the police, fire, and military business.

Your argument is retarded. My local fire department hasn't generated a profit in it's decades of existence. NICE TO KNOW OUR HOUSES ARE SAFE!!

Bourbon St Sooner
10/27/2009, 03:59 PM
The point everyone keeps dancing around is how do we pay for it?And no, I'm not talking about Obamacare. I'm talking about the status quo. Do you want to pull the plug on uninsured premature infants? Well, neither do I, but how are we going to pay for it? This is what is at the heart of the issue. I've made this point ad nauseam, but I'll reiterate--IRRECOVERABLE LOSSES SUSTAINED FROM TREATING THE UNINSURED IS THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN CONSTANTLY RISING HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

If you don't support reform, what's the answer? Turn the sick away and let them die? Or do you wish to continue subsidizing their care through a series of middlemen?


How we pay for it is exactly the answer. Every society has to decide how much it wants to allocate on health care. Health care is a scarce resource like everything else and must be rationed by some system. I don't like the current system, but can't see the good of replacing insurance bureaucrats with gov't bureaucrats. It's the same system just new management. Just because the gov't runs it doesn't mean health care all of a sudden becomes an unlimited resource. Somehow it has to be rationed and in single payer systems it's rationed by gov't bureaucrats.

And no, the treating of uninsured people is not the reason for expanding medical costs. It may look that way if you're running a hospital, but as JM said, by covering everyone you're not necessarily moving costs out of the system just moving it around.

The real driver of costs in the system is our expanding waistlines and sedentary lifestyle. The real inequality is healthy people that have to subsidize people that live unhealthy lives. To me, that fat **** that keeps stuffing his face while taking insulin shots everyday and a drug cocktail to control every other ailment that goes along with it should pay more. That person that keeps smoking while coughing up blood should pay more. Until you address those incentives, the system is broken.

My Opinion Matters
10/27/2009, 04:32 PM
How we pay for it is exactly the answer. Every society has to decide how much it wants to allocate on health care. Health care is a scarce resource like everything else and must be rationed by some system. I don't like the current system, but can't see the good of replacing insurance bureaucrats with gov't bureaucrats. It's the same system just new management. Just because the gov't runs it doesn't mean health care all of a sudden becomes an unlimited resource. Somehow it has to be rationed and in single payer systems it's rationed by gov't bureaucrats.

I don't care who is in the captain's seat. Whether it's the government or private insurance steering this leviathan is unimportant. I support a very uncomplicated concept--everyone pays, the price comes down.


And no, the treating of uninsured people is not the reason for expanding medical costs.

I generally respect your opinions on this subject, because you seem to be one of the few that are truly informed, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this. I realize anecdotal testimony is not concrete evidence, but I see it everyday with my own eyes. In this case correlation does equal causation.


It may look that way if you're running a hospital, but as JM said, by covering everyone you're not necessarily moving costs out of the system just moving it around.

Comparatively speaking, our current system compared to this hypothetical system, you're reducing the cost of those currently insured in our present system because we're no longer subsidizing the cost of the uninsured. Everyone pays in.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2009, 04:47 PM
I support a very uncomplicated concept--everyone pays, the price comes down.

I think that statement might be the source of some confusion. Having more payers doesn't reduce the *cost* of health care. It would, however, reduce the *price* that each individual contributing to the system pays. I think the latter is what you meant, right?


Comparitively speaking, our current system compared to this hypothetical system, you're reducing the cost of those currently insured in our present system because we're no longer subsidizing the cost of the uninsured. Everyone pays in.

While the logic is sound, I feel pretty certain that it would not actually play out like that. Depending on whose numbers you use, upwards of 90% of all people are currently insured. If costs remain the same (see above) then you are only redistributing 10% of the "price" to the currently uninsured. So, if my math/logic is correct the "price" to the currently uninsured would only drop about 10%.

And that is if *all* of the currently uninsured suddenly become insured. But if premiums are only 10% lower that simply isn't goig to happen. Unless, of course, the government starts giving people subsidies and/or tax credits. But now you're back to 90% of the people paying for the other 10% - in the form of increased taxes.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2009, 04:57 PM
The logic of getting rid of profit in the health arena does not lead to the conclusion that patients aren't denied care they desire.

In fact, non-profit health care leads us to patients not getting the best care possible. Without profits, who will research new procedures, new medicines, new devices? If there is no profit involved, not many people are going to spend their time and effort researching it. It will ultimately fall to the govt to fund all medical research. So, we will get what the govt wants - when the govt wants it. And, the best part is, we (tax payers) still get to pay for it. We just get to pay the govt instead of those greedy health care providers.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2009, 05:04 PM
If you don't support reform, what's the answer?

I think this is a common misconception among those who support govt-run health insurance. You assume that if someone doesn't agree with you then they don't want any change at all. This is not a two-sided debate.

For example, here is one answer that looks pretty good to me (from the post directly above yours):


What we really need to do is get away from employer provided health care and go to a system of medical savings accounts and high deductible insurance policies.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2009, 05:14 PM
The point everyone keeps dancing around is how do we pay for it?And no, I'm not talking about Obamacare. I'm talking about the status quo. Do you want to pull the plug on uninsured premature infants? Well, neither do I, but how are we going to pay for it? This is what is at the heart of the issue. I've made this point ad nauseam, but I'll reiterate--IRRECOVERABLE LOSSES SUSTAINED FROM TREATING THE UNINSURED IS THE SINGLE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN CONSTANTLY RISING HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

If you don't support reform, what's the answer? Turn the sick away and let them die? Or do you wish to continue subsidizing their care through a series of middlemen?

Nothing you've said addresses the cost of LOWERING the overall cost of healthcare. You're stuck on the cost of health insurance. And you sound like a politician, not an accountant.

JohnnyMack
10/27/2009, 05:17 PM
Comparatively speaking, our current system compared to this hypothetical system, you're reducing the cost of those currently insured in our present system because we're no longer subsidizing the cost of the uninsured. Everyone pays in.

YOU ARE NOT LOWERING THE COST OF HEALTH CARE.

There's a big difference between what insurance costs and what health care costs.

yermom
10/27/2009, 05:41 PM
i'd say they are related...

the reason they charge so much for healthcare is because so many people don't pay. hardly anyone that does pay pays solely out of pocket, thus the insurance companies have to pay more, thus we have less coverage for more money

but yeah, just giving everyone health insurance doesn't solve anything. who doesn't have stories of someone they know getting jerked around by insurance companies, private or government controlled?

BermudaSooner
10/27/2009, 06:02 PM
Nice attempt to manipulate my words, but I never said profit was evil. It just doesn't belong in the healthcare equation. For the same reasons it doesn't belong in the police, fire, and military business.

Your argument is retarded. My local fire department hasn't generated a profit in it's decades of existence. NICE TO KNOW OUR HOUSES ARE SAFE!!

I'm retarded? You are comparing firemen to doctors.

Now I understand your argument. You want the govt to run health care just like they run police and fire. That is a shockingly bad idea--even for you. Firemen and Policemen, while brave, are not who I want cutting me up when I need surgery. I want the smartest most skilled guy possible.

My Opinion Matters
10/28/2009, 08:45 AM
YOU ARE NOT LOWERING THE COST OF HEALTH CARE.

There's a big difference between what insurance costs and what health care costs.

No, there's not.

We've been around and around on this point. The two are inexorably intertwined. Innumerable healthcare goods and services have their prices hyperinflated to cover the costs of things that lose money. ICU's lose money. Emergency rooms lose money. Millions and millions and millions of dollars every year.Why? Mostly the cost of caring for the uninsured. How do hospitals stay in business? $15,000 for outpatient surgery, $2,000 for a CT scan, $10 for a band-aid, that's how. THESE PRICES ARE NOT REFLECTIVE OF COST. Instead of everyone being billed $2,000 for a CT scan, everyone is billed $400. Wow! I've just reduced healthcare costs by 500%!

Are you starting to understand?

yermom
10/28/2009, 11:36 AM
80% ;)

My Opinion Matters
10/28/2009, 11:53 AM
80% ;)

That doesn't sound as impressive. ;)

JohnnyMack
10/28/2009, 12:45 PM
No, there's not.

We've been around and around on this point. The two are inexorably intertwined.

They are closely associated, but the cost of healthcare in this different than the cost of health insurance. But that's semantics we shouldn't be dealing with.


$2,000 for a CT scan, $10 for a band-aid, that's how. THESE PRICES ARE NOT REFLECTIVE OF COST. Instead of everyone being billed $2,000 for a CT scan, everyone is billed $400. Wow! I've just reduced healthcare costs by 500%!


Do you understand the difference between price and cost? What something is priced at (or billed at) is different than what its cost is. You seem to get that. However it seems to me that you're somehow failing to grasp the connection between what's currently being discussed in Congress as healthcare reform and a reduction in what healthcare in this country costs. Nothing being put forth from our beloved representatives in D.C. will in my opinion lower the cost of healthcare in this country. It will shift the burden to a different place (thereby reducing the PRICE of certain procedures) but it won't change the overall cost. Simply introducing another insurer into the game (the Govt.) won't change the number of doctor visits, trips to the ER, MRIs done, etc.

It's my opinion that the most effective way to reduce the cost of healthcare in this country would be through increased funding in education programs aimed at explaining the benefits of eating healthier foods and exercising more. That education should be primarily funded by a "fat tax" aimed at manufacturers of blatantly unhealthy items. The same way the govt. taxes cigarettes and alcohol we should impose a burden on those who choose to ingest foods that they know aren't good for them. There is a definite correlation between level of education and overall health. That's how you reduce costs.

My Opinion Matters
10/28/2009, 01:32 PM
They are closely associated, but the cost of healthcare in this different than the cost of health insurance. But that's semantics we shouldn't be dealing with.



Do you understand the difference between price and cost? What something is priced at (or billed at) is different than what its cost is. You seem to get that. However it seems to me that you're somehow failing to grasp the connection between what's currently being discussed in Congress as healthcare reform and a reduction in what healthcare in this country costs. Nothing being put forth from our beloved representatives in D.C. will in my opinion lower the cost of healthcare in this country. It will shift the burden to a different place (thereby reducing the PRICE of certain procedures) but it won't change the overall cost. Simply introducing another insurer into the game (the Govt.) won't change the number of doctor visits, trips to the ER, MRIs done, etc.

It's my opinion that the most effective way to reduce the cost of healthcare in this country would be through increased funding in education programs aimed at explaining the benefits of eating healthier foods and exercising more. That education should be primarily funded by a "fat tax" aimed at manufacturers of blatantly unhealthy items. The same way the govt. taxes cigarettes and alcohol we should impose a burden on those who choose to ingest foods that they know aren't good for them. There is a definite correlation between level of education and overall health. That's how you reduce costs.

Johnny, I don't know how else I can explain this to you...the monumental difference between price and cost is precisely the point I've been trying to drive home. What you're failing to grasp are the reasons this gap exists. It will require a massive paradigm shift in the financial infrastructure of the medical industry, but by simply removing the factor of hyperinflation on specific sectors within the industry you're reducing the cost and the price of healthcare as a whole. How do you do that? You eliminate the reasons that hyperinflation existed in the first place.

My Opinion Matters
10/28/2009, 01:34 PM
And you're reaching. I've never once gone on record and said I support this, or any other government-sponsored healthcare bill.

JohnnyMack
10/28/2009, 01:39 PM
by simply removing the factor of hyperinflation on specific sectors within the industry you're reducing the cost and the price of healthcare as a whole. How do you do that? You eliminate the reasons that hyperinflation existed in the first place.

Can you please show me how your assertion lowers costs and not just price?

My Opinion Matters
10/28/2009, 01:55 PM
I just did.

pilobolus
10/28/2009, 02:04 PM
Some of you miss the point entirely. Insurance companies provide NOTHING. No products, no services. They are middlemen who profit to the tune of $300 billion a year by denying people coverage and padding their bottom line.

JohnnyMack
10/28/2009, 02:06 PM
I just did.

How wonderfully naive of you.

Stoop Dawg
10/28/2009, 04:38 PM
Some of you miss the point entirely. Insurance companies provide NOTHING. No products, no services. They are middlemen who profit to the tune of $300 billion a year by denying people coverage and padding their bottom line.

Is there some poll somewhere where the mods collect all of the dumb stuff posted on this board and the let us vote on which ones are the dumbest of them all? If so, I nominate the quoted post for inclusion in that poll.

StoopTroup
10/28/2009, 04:44 PM
Gee...I thought he was right on.

My Opinion Matters
10/28/2009, 05:39 PM
How wonderfully naive of you.

It's like trying to explain algebra to a monkey. It's not incumbent upon me to phrase it, rephrase it, rephrase it yet again, and word it in a slightly different way until you finally understand it. It's incumbent on you to pull your head out and stop being a dumbass.

I've never had a problem with you, Johnny, but your views and understanding of all things political, spiritual, and scientific are well-documented on these boards. You labeling anyone 'naive' reeks of irony like Howzit reeks of women's perfume.

JohnnyMack
10/28/2009, 06:58 PM
It's like trying to explain algebra to a monkey. It's not incumbent upon me to phrase it, rephrase it, rephrase it yet again, and word it in a slightly different way until you finally understand it. It's incumbent on you to pull your head out and stop being a dumbass.

I've never had a problem with you, Johnny, but your views and understanding of all things political, spiritual, and scientific are well-documented on these boards. You labeling anyone 'naive' reeks of irony like Howzit reeks of women's perfume.

Hey you want a single payer system, more power to you. It's your opinion/belief that that sort of system will magically reduce costs and I don't happen to agree with you. While I'm far from a complete free market capitalist, I certainly don't associate the concept of a government administered single payer system with either efficiency or frugality.

JohnnyMack
10/29/2009, 08:46 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/29/the_unhealthy_public_option_98918.html

BermudaSooner
10/30/2009, 09:55 AM
Is there some poll somewhere where the mods collect all of the dumb stuff posted on this board and the let us vote on which ones are the dumbest of them all? If so, I nominate the quoted post for inclusion in that poll.

I second that.

BermudaSooner
10/30/2009, 10:19 AM
No, there's not.

We've been around and around on this point. The two are inexorably intertwined. Innumerable healthcare goods and services have their prices hyperinflated to cover the costs of things that lose money. ICU's lose money. Emergency rooms lose money. Millions and millions and millions of dollars every year.Why? Mostly the cost of caring for the uninsured. How do hospitals stay in business? $15,000 for outpatient surgery, $2,000 for a CT scan, $10 for a band-aid, that's how. THESE PRICES ARE NOT REFLECTIVE OF COST. Instead of everyone being billed $2,000 for a CT scan, everyone is billed $400. Wow! I've just reduced healthcare costs by 500%!

Are you starting to understand?

I think it is you that aren't understanding what Johnny and others are saying. Let's put some numbers to it for illustration:

Let's say it costs in aggregate $100 million to run an ER in a year.

And now let's get rid of that evil profit you so despise. (Which by the way will get rid of all incentive for the ER to be efficient, but that's another discussion.)

So clearly the ER needs to have $100 million of income to cover its costs. We on the same page so far?

Now, let's assume this ER has 100,000 patients in a year, all with the same ailment. Therefore, a fair share for each is $1,000 per person to cover the ER costs.

Further, let's now assume that 20% are uninsured--(for ease of calculation). So, now only 80,000 patients will pay, and 20,000 get their free care. (Free care, that, by the way many of them likely could have bought, but prefer this arrangement of the rest of us responsible ones paying for him, but I digress).

So now, the ones playing by the rules have to pay $1,250 for their visit in order to generate the revenue to cover the ER's costs.

If everyone were insured, we'd each pay $1,000. So, in this simplified, non-realistic scenario, we reduced the price of each visit by having everyone insured.

Johnny's point that you aren't seeming to get, Opinion, is that we did nothing to reduce the cost of running the ER. It still costs $100 million. It needs to generate revenue of $100 million. Full insurance or lack of insurance does nothing to change this.

Now, the discussion should focus on ways to get that $100 million down. In that scenario, I'll take private industry trying to make a profit over government bureaucracy every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

BermudaSooner
10/30/2009, 10:26 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/29/the_unhealthy_public_option_98918.html

Good find Johnny. Some interesting points:

President Obama says it would help consumers by giving private insurers some real competition. But the typical state has 27 companies competing in the small-group health insurance market. If there were insufficient competition, the health insurance sector wouldn't rank 86th among American industries in profitability.

Health economists Regina Herzlinger of Harvard and Robert Book of the Heritage Foundation note that on a per-person basis, Medicare has higher administrative costs than private firms.

If the Washington-run plan charges too little to pay its expenses, will it raise rates, thus antagonizing what could be a sizable group of voters? Or will Congress cough up the money to keep it going? You know the answer.

BermudaSooner
11/1/2009, 10:28 PM
Nothing, Opinion?

jkjsooner
11/4/2009, 04:15 PM
Let's not go down that road! I have investment property and when they deem housing to be a right there goes my profit. And also any incentive to buy more. :eek:


I call B.S. on that. The efforts to make housing more "affordable" has driven up the price of houses and land. If you've owned investment properties for a decade or so you have benefited greatly but government deciding that house ownership was a right.

TAFBSooner
11/5/2009, 03:42 PM
Originally Posted by pilobolus
Some of you miss the point entirely. Insurance companies provide NOTHING. No products, no services. They are middlemen who profit to the tune of $300 billion a year by denying people coverage and padding their bottom line.


Is there some poll somewhere where the mods collect all of the dumb stuff posted on this board and the let us vote on which ones are the dumbest of them all? If so, I nominate the quoted post for inclusion in that poll.

Can we agree that insurance companies don't provide any product?

SD, apparently it's obvious to you that insurance companies do provide some sort of service (other than in an agricultural sense :rolleyes: ). What service is that?

TAFBSooner
11/22/2009, 09:36 PM
I'm sure there's still no love (from the conservatives here) for medical insurance reform, but I see nobody is sticking up for insurance companies. :D That's a start!

StoopTroup
11/22/2009, 09:39 PM
On the other hand. If you've ever had to file a welfare claim for a patient...and had to wait for your pittance payment...I can see why many folks are worried as hell that the Government thinks they can fix it. Once they have assumed control....your choice is to not stick up for the Government?

It's a really tough situation that the Insurance Companies have put us in. You'd think they'd reform themselves.