How much should health care cost? Should it cost anything?

[Big Fitz]

A big part of the problem is the medical cost, Dr's have become accustomed to huge yearly earning so they adjust the billing to maintain the standard, cost has nothing to do with it. There is another component, why do we have to have all the test run. Lawyers pure and simple, the doctors have to play CYA. More cost, more profit. I don't have a solution but I know the answer is that someone is going to pay or you get no care.

Sort of true. They are used to big earnings and big costs. Every drug has a certain amount of litigation costs built into it, incase something goes wrong. Their profit margins aren't as huge as say financial investors or hedge funds (which is about 80% profit) But they are better than oil company's profit margin (about 8-10%)

You're right about litigation being a major force for increased medical costs. The FDA costs to test a drug for use in the market is extreme. Makes the hoops you have to jump through to get a garbage dump or nuclear power plant seem like a walk in the park. Then you have to have the hospital legal staff, the insurance company's legal staff for malpractice lawsuits and the doctor's legal liabilities.

That is why much of the costs in the US are so high... overuse of lawsuits for profiteering and blackmail of those with deep pockets. Make it loser pays and cap awards AND legal fees... it would destroy the lawsuit profiteering business and put tens of thousands of lawyers out of a job and force them to do work for a living instead of sue.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

A big part of the problem is the medical cost, Dr's have become accustomed to huge yearly earning so they adjust the billing to maintain the standard, cost has nothing to do with it. There is another component, why do we have to have all the test run. Lawyers pure and simple, the doctors have to play CYA. More cost, more profit. I don't have a solution but I know the answer is that someone is going to pay or you get no care.

I really don't think you want to go after dr salaries. The cost of medical school and low cost of training would bankrupt anyone attempting a medical education.

Not all ER visits by the uninsured are emergencies. If i had to guess more then 75% are for bullshit. They need a prescription for this, sprained that, oh this hurts i want pan meds. Sorry all of those patients need to be sent elsewhere and refused ER treatment. [/COLOR]

Except that's not the case, and it can't be determined that easily. As I said, you seem to only be seeing the small things such as nosebleeds and sprained ankles. Those do NOT make up the bulk of costs. The person coming in with vague belly pain needs a CT. Some will get surgery, perhaps to ensure they don't have appendicitis, and 20% of those who do receive surgery will be found to have not actually needed it. Not because the doctors screwed up, but because the risk of waiting is too dangerous of a possibility. These patients cannot be sent elsewhere or refused ER treatment.

Still trying to contradict wikipedia with lolcats and name calling? How sad.

Start producing links to your 'evidence' then. I'll be happy to shred it later if it's what I expect you to produce.

Well, we can start with the link regarding the public option, which you completely botched previously. Have fun shredding Wikipedia with lolcats.

Just curious: do you still think your privatized schools are going to be paid for using non-existent tax dollars? Have you figured out what the public option's objectives were? Do you still think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation?

I see. You just can't let the sting of getting pwned in that thread alone. Poor baby.

Judging by your further avoidance and lack of answer to all questions, I take it that's a no.


So Fitz: how are you going to pay for a major surgery? How about the ICU stay afterwards? What would you do given a $200,000 bill? You are vehemently avoiding answering this, but we all already know what the answer is: you'd have everyone else pay for you. You are a part of that "deadbeat problem" you continually described.

 

[syrenn]

I agree, more would be paying into the system. People who want nothing to do with the program will also be paying into the system that i am sure will take no part of. There will be more who will be paying nothing again.

And right along with all of that you are allowing millions access to medical that they did not have access to before. Another program to suck off of, enjoy, and not pay a cent for. Another program to use and abuse and not pay a cent for.

My guess 50% would be exempt from payments. Sorry, that does not work for me. If you want the new system PAY for it. Make the payments exactly the same for every. If that is not going to work...then trash the new system. It is more of the same shit we have now.

OK now we're getting some good conversation going. The question would continually come back to the concern you just expressed: Won't this mean that more people are NOT paying? I would argue no. There are just three categories right now: people who are paying for healthcare, people who COULD BE paying but aren't, and people who aren't. As you can tell, movement would only combine the first two categories, and leave the third mostly unaffected. We can go into the details of what constitutes people who could be paying but aren't.

So if this new system forces people like Big Fitz to pay into the system simply because he is working a legal job and thus tracked via taxes, it would mean more people are paying in, and less people are getting a free ride. In short: it CAN'T increase both because it is a finite and set system.

I understand that part. I don't argue it would be a sweet deal for the working poor. However i believe the VAST majority within the system will be your non paying 1/3. (i think it would be more like the non paying 2/3's however.)

Now a good deal of people (and i am not saying you BF as i dont know your situation) who are the working poor also are entitled to food stamps, welfare, and section 8 housing. My guess they would still be exempt from payments even though they have jobs.

You are also not counting all of the children who will be flooding the system.

So again. The payment needs to be the same for everyone. Every must pay, no exemptions. The payments need to be high enough to sustain a viable system. No system that the burden of payments FORCED onto some and not others will work. It is unsustainable.

So what is the magic number for a monthly payment? Should there be a payment for each child your have?

I would think $100 a month would be a SWEETdeal per person including children. So a family with 2 kids is $400 a month. Think that is gonna fly with the working poor?

How about a single mother just scraping by with 4 kids? She has a job and is making it by the skin of her teeth. Think squeezing her for $500 a month will work?

 

[syrenn]

Not all ER visits by the uninsured are emergencies. If i had to guess more then 75% are for bullshit. They need a prescription for this, sprained that, oh this hurts i want pan meds. Sorry all of those patients need to be sent elsewhere and refused ER treatment. [/COLOR]

Except that's not the case, and it can't be determined that easily. As I said, you seem to only be seeing the small things such as nosebleeds and sprained ankles. Those do NOT make up the bulk of costs. The person coming in with vague belly pain needs a CT. Some will get surgery, perhaps to ensure they don't have appendicitis, and 20% of those who do receive surgery will be found to have not actually needed it. Not because the doctors screwed up, but because the risk of waiting is too dangerous of a possibility. These patients cannot be sent elsewhere or refused ER treatment.

I know what comes into the ER. I know there are true emergencies.

The point is if that person shows up for care and is still a non paying leach on the system.(obamacare).......then nothing has changed at all. They are getting care for NOTHING. They are getting care that those who can pay are shouldering.

So your working poor who are forced to pay into a system, a system that they didnt pay for before, will now be paying for someone who is not. Now think, if everyone was paying... than that working poor payment would be lower....


So again everyone should pay the same. No exemptions.

 

[Big Fitz]

So if this new system forces people like Big Fitz to pay into the system simply because he is working a legal job and thus tracked via taxes, it would mean more people are paying in, and less people are getting a free ride. In short: it CAN'T increase both because it is a finite and set system.

That's the theory. And we of course run into the brick wall of it's still unconstitutional. Now a state could make 'universal healthcare' if it wanted to for all it's citizens. That's constitutional.

They would have to come up with a system that covered everyone and was paid for as a budget item by the state taxes. Now, the state spending would jump. All these medical bills now flow into the public treasury and have to be paid. Government spending would jump accordingly. Now, let's say the state cant raise taxes (either the governor or legislature won't pass it, or they'd face a tax rebellion). They now have a budget shortfall. How are they going to pay the doctors and hospitals and other care providers? They're already in an economic downturn because all the insurance companies they've put out of business in their state are looking for work. So what is the next logical step?

Rationing. They either have to start shutting down hospitals, fire personnel, or deny services. If they can't raise taxes to support the costs, and those costs actually will go up because free incurs increased use every time in every industry and market. It's an economic fact. So someone in government, (Bureaucrats or a blue ribbon panel convened to take the blame that elected officials won't) has to start telling people that the panacea of free care from cradle to grave for every aspect cannot exist. How's that going to go over? Led balloon anyone?

Now, if taxes COULD be raised, you slit your own throat again. Why? Because capital is fluid and you can't stop people and businesses and investors from fleeing your state. If taxes go up, the taxed party shrinks as people find ways to circumvent the law. They either leave, or find exemptions. If they can't get the loophole, they will leave. Often those who pay the most also have the easiest chance to leave. This forces more and more of the tax burden on to those who can least afford it. Now if businesses leave, unemployment rises and the ability to pay taxes decreases. Simple fact of life. It's a vicious circle that you can't escape from.

You may say that 'but the costs are so much less that privately paid for health care because everyone pays in!" Not really. On the individual person, it may seem that way at first, but as usage goes up, so do the costs. Plus, government is never efficient because they don't have a profit margin to protect. If they have a cost overrun, fine, tax more or allocate more from the budget and find another revenue stream. There is no pressure for quality either because what are you going to do? force them out of business? They're a monopoly! Nobody else is allowed to play. Where are you going to go? Tennessee? So it doesn't matter if you're incompetent, your job is secure because you can't go out of business. The market is captive to your shoddy quality. Don't believe me that this is the case, just look at how the Guilded Age acted towards consumers (read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" for instance) Trusts and monopolies worked the same way as a government monopoly. Quality decreased, costs decreased with quality, profits increased till the government got involved with consumer protection because the public was being abused.

The point is, that universal government healthcare is fatally flawed because it is unable to do efficient quality business practices, contain costs, or safely increase revenue without damaging the state's economy. It's happening in Canada where in Winnipeg, for instance, they have to shut down over 50% of their operating rooms starting in fall because they run out of money, and the remaining ones are for emergency use only to save lives in immediate danger. Their system is dying. Cleveland is the hip replacement mecca for Canadians who can't get it done there in any reasonable amount of time.

Of course, these are simple logical examples of the laws of unintended consequences. Private industry prices are high because costs are high. They must have a profit margin to protect themselves so that they can survive bad times and grow into the future so everyone can potentially get coverage. That is the nature of business. That is why it is best handled by individuals and the private market. Don't forget, if you don't like the way a company or hospital operates, you can always go somewhere else in theory. If you have universal health care that's government mandated... there is no alternative.

Now, look a page or two back, see the 10 reforms I propose and discuss those and why they would or would not work.

 

[Big Fitz]

What would you do given a $200,000 bill?

Right now? I'd tell them they better like payments. If not, they can go ahead and sue me. I'll declare bankruptcy and get out from under it that way. Anything that I can't do, I'll see if a private charity would help, or family. As it should be.

Now, let's ask another 'honest' question. Why is the surgery 200k? Shouldn't it be more like 20k at most? If you want to play with loaded dice, let's figure that bitch of an issue out. What, are the things driving up health care costs, and what can be done to reverse it, before we have the government just pay the status quo and perpetuate the same problem that is devestating the citizenry at large, hmm? Or are we just into enabling this industry to keep on doing what it's doing?

Or is that too honest an intellectual challenge for you?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I understand that part. I don't argue it would be a sweet deal for the working poor. However i believe the VAST majority within the system will be your non paying 1/3. (i think it would be more like the non paying 2/3's however.)

Now a good deal of people (and i am not saying you BF as i dont know your situation) who are the working poor also are entitled to food stamps, welfare, and section 8 housing. My guess they would still be exempt from payments even though they have jobs.

You are also not counting all of the children who will be flooding the system.

So again. The payment needs to be the same for everyone. Every must pay, no exemptions. The payments need to be high enough to sustain a viable system. No system that the burden of payments FORCED onto some and not others will work. It is unsustainable.

So what is the magic number for a monthly payment? Should there be a payment for each child your have?

I would think $100 a month would be a SWEETdeal per person including children. So a family with 2 kids is $400 a month. Think that is gonna fly with the working poor?

How about a single mother just scraping by with 4 kids? She has a job and is making it by the skin of her teeth. Think squeezing her for $500 a month will work?

You have continued to make the claim that everyone needs to pay the same, and I just don't see it. If nothing more, you should reject that idea because RIGHT NOW we're not all paying the same, and the system IS still sustainable, as screwed up as it is. Why is it sustainable? Because people who ARE paying cover those who are NOT. This would still be the case if it was taken from taxes, except as usual for a percentage, the rich would pay more, and the poor would pay less. Everyone who works a legal job pays to varying degrees.

ALTERNATELY, if you don't like the taxation approach, keep the system as it is, but require some form of insurance coverage. You'll find a parallel product: the rich will purchase good plans at higher costs, and the middle class will spend less on mediocre coverage.

I know what comes into the ER. I know there are true emergencies.

The point is if that person shows up for care and is still a non paying leach on the system.(obamacare).......then nothing has changed at all. They are getting care for NOTHING. They are getting care that those who can pay are shouldering.

So your working poor who are forced to pay into a system, a system that they didnt pay for before, will now be paying for someone who is not. Now think, if everyone was paying... than that working poor payment would be lower....
[/COLOR]

Again, it could only LOWER the number of people not paying, as all the people in Fitz's category would be pulled in to contribute. Now you COULD make the claim that the lower number of non-paying people would then be seeking out more healthcare since it's "free," but you made a good point before about ER visits. Do you want this smaller group of people going to the ER once for their $6,000 antibiotics? Or do you want them to visit their doctor three times at $100 per visit?

So if this new system forces people like Big Fitz to pay into the system simply because he is working a legal job and thus tracked via taxes, it would mean more people are paying in, and less people are getting a free ride. In short: it CAN'T increase both because it is a finite and set system.

That's the theory.

Except it's NOT. There ARE a finite and set number of people before and after the change. People can only go between the groups.

as usage goes up, so do the costs

Let's be clear. As isolated usage of medical resources goes up, overall cost goes up. As isolated usage of insurance goes up, cost go down.

The point is, that universal government healthcare is fatally flawed because it is unable to do efficient quality business practices, contain costs

If you haven't realize, we are doing a HORRIBLE job at containing cost. Maintaining the status quo is a poor decision with regards to cost containment. Believing the government could not establish a new type of self-sustaining operation is unsupported speculation. Did you read the wikipedia article yet?

Of course, these are simple logical examples of the laws of unintended consequences. Private industry prices are high because costs are high. They must have a profit margin to protect themselves so that they can survive bad times and grow into the future

Bad times? You mean when people stop needing health insurance? Or growing in the future like when they push out new products and services such as MORE OF THE EXACT SAME THING.

That is why it is best handled by individuals and the private market.

Except, you CAN'T handle it. We've established that. If you right now were hit by a multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill, you couldn't handle it whatsoever. You'd punk out and make everyone else pay.

Don't forget, if you don't like the way a company or hospital operates, you can always go somewhere else in theory. If you have universal health care that's government mandated... there is no alternative.

That's not true at all. Can you point out a single written policy that has stated patients could not choose their own healthcare?

Now, look a page or two back, see the 10 reforms I propose and discuss those and why they would or would not work.

Don't have time to go into each one. Many of those are helpful to lower costs, but they are not solutions to the actual problem of sharing risk.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

What would you do given a $200,000 bill?

Right now? I'd tell them they better like payments. If not, they can go ahead and sue me. I'll declare bankruptcy and get out from under it that way. Anything that I can't do, I'll see if a private charity would help, or family. As it should be.

Now, let's ask another 'honest' question. Why is the surgery 200k? Shouldn't it be more like 20k at most? If you want to play with loaded dice, let's figure that bitch of an issue out. What, are the things driving up health care costs, and what can be done to reverse it, before we have the government just pay the status quo and perpetuate the same problem that is devestating the citizenry at large, hmm? Or are we just into enabling this industry to keep on doing what it's doing?

Or is that too honest an intellectual challenge for you?

Well, it involves all the skilled people that need to be paid, as well as the cost of the resources. As I said, some stapler devices cost $500 just to open the pack, let alone reloading. Surgery tends to use a lot of patented products in that way. A lot of money goes into research and development, which gets transmitted to the cost, and more money still goes into ensuring every single thing that touches a patient's body is completely sterile. This is not an easy task. At least one doctor and two nurses are needed in the OR for the surgery itself, and another doctor or nurse for the anesthesia. The recovery room has its own staff as well. At a minimum, you're paying at least 5 highly trained individuals for hours and hours of work before you even pay the hospital, and we haven't even gone into the visits before the surgery or how long the surgeon will treat you in the hospital afterwards, which is included in that cost. Which part of surgery would you do without? Which people do you think ought to work for free? Which resources do you think the hospital shouldn't charge for?

 

[Big Fitz]

Except it's NOT. There ARE a finite and set number of people before and after the change. People can only go between the groups.

A snapshot of an economy is a finite number. It shows you what's happening at that moment. A real economy grows or shrinks depending on policy. You believe that to earn money, you have to prevent someone else from earning it, don't you?

Let's be clear.

Sorry, thought you were channeling P-BO. Better drinking game than "Maverick" that's for sure.

As isolated usage of medical resources goes up, overall cost goes up. As isolated usage of insurance goes up, cost go down.

Whaaaaaa? That's supposed to make sense? Let's look at real world examples: The house purchase credit, energy efficient appliances credit and Cash for Clunkers. All offered subsidies caused a jump in sales of those industries. Why? Because the prices were cheaper to the consumer. I know people who rushed out to buy new appliances before the deadline. Cash for Clunkers was touted as a 'success' by leftists who wanted to expand and extend it because it helped spawn auto sales. Now... all those things have ended. What happened? Those markets crashed back to or even LOWER than what they were before the credit was offered. Why? Because the market was artificially influenced by an unsustainable subsidy. Sorry, economics proves you wrong once again.

If you haven't realize, we are doing a HORRIBLE job at containing cost.

Absolutely. We also have to realize most of the high costs are CAUSED by government directly or indirectly. University costs have risen faster than all other sectors of the economy with no good reason. Just people begging for bigger paychecks. Then you get into malpractice insurance among many other types of coverage for doctors and hospitals. The legal fees in general, then pharmaceutical costs boosted because of advertising budgets and again, legal fees as well as the FDA gauntlet to even be approved for use. These are just some of MANY different causes, and don't get me started on the union pressure either for related professions from Janitors to Nurses.

Maintaining the status quo is a poor decision with regards to cost containment.

And that's what Obamacare will do. Actually, it will make it far worse because you've removed the consumer from direct impact of pricing even more. Bureaucrats don't give a shit about how much something costs, as long as it's not "their" money.

Believing the government could not establish a new type of self-sustaining operation is unsupported speculation.

Then you should have many examples of current government programs not fraught with waste, fraud, incompetence and misuse. Please, I'd love to hear them.

Did you read the wikipedia article yet?

Never saw a link. I have no idea what you are talking about. Plus, all politically charged articles on wikipedia are under constant flux by propagandists. That's why you can't find an honest article on global warming there.

Bad times? You mean when people stop needing health insurance?

No, like when there is a flood of claims they must pay out on that can potentially bankrupt the insurance company. You DO understand how this industry works, don't you? This has cast some doubt on you for that. When an insurance company recieves your premium check, where does it go? What does it do? I know, do you?

Or growing in the future like when they push out new products and services such as MORE OF THE EXACT SAME THING.

Define "exact same thing" please. There are many different products out there for insurance. But remember, state mandates define what they are allowed to sell and what must be included. There's why many of them appear to be very similar to the untrained eye. Have you ever personally shopped for health care and with multiple companies?

Except, you CAN'T handle it. We've established that. If you right now were hit by a multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill, you couldn't handle it whatsoever. You'd punk out and make everyone else pay.

And when the government punks out and can't afford to pay, who's going to bail them out? You act like you think that can't happen. Someone pays. Either the medical facilities have to eat it, or someone pays. Right now the nation is bankrupt, if it weren't for printing money out of thin air and getting loans from people who WILL be collecting someday. I have said plainly, I would pay what I could afford on the bill till it was paid off, if they would take it. If they won't, well they fucked themselves then, didn't they? Sue me, fine. I'm trying to make payments. What are you going to get? Blood from a stone? Even RDD, before he ran away understood that. But at least I have the personal character enough to be honest about that. I'd look for help from the willing, being family and private charity, but if that's unavailable, oh fucking doo doo well. What'll they do? Take my birthday away?

Your point lacks validity or relevance.

That's not true at all. Can you point out a single written policy that has stated patients could not choose their own healthcare?

As a matter of fact, the benefits package included a dental insurance form that just proves that. I can only go to doctors in "Their Network". If I go outside of it, I must pay for it myself. This is not uncommon to any insurance type. You use their glass installers, their roofing companies, their doctors, yadda yadda yadda. If they don't do the procedure you want, you have to shell out as it will be uncovered. If my doctor isn't on there, I cannot choose my own healthcare.

You don't have or never shopped for insurance, or never went through a workplace benefits seminar. That's becoming quite obvious.

Don't have time to go into each one.

but they are not solutions to the actual problem of sharing risk.

Sharing risk is the problem? By who's standard??? You realize that insurance companies share data with each other to help price risk properly, right? They then price themselves accordingly. Some accuse them of having an illegal trust, when in the end, it saves you money. If it's just the government, who's going to price risk? Bureaucrats who have no reason to get it right. If an insurance company prices risk wrong, they end up out of business, as I illustrated earlier in this post. If a government prices risk wrong... you just get to pay more taxes till you can't afford the taxes anymore. YOu don't think it's going to happen? Look at Sweden's 80% tax rates for average citizens.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, it involves all the skilled people that need to be paid,

That's correct. People need to be paid fairly for work they provide. Medical care is a trade. Services and goods for profit. It is no different than farming, water purification, electricity or Ipods.

As I said, some stapler devices cost $500 just to open the pack, let alone reloading. Surgery tends to use a lot of patented products in that way. A lot of money goes into research and development, which gets transmitted to the cost, and more money still goes into ensuring every single thing that touches a patient's body is completely sterile.

That's absolutely right. Now ask yourself WHY are these things so expensive? I mean we know that there is no such thing as a toilet seat worth $500 bucks, though military contractors charged that much for it. So, why is that stapler so expensive? Why is an aspirin or tylenol 20 bucks? That is what we need to understand. Why can't you cut costs by buying your own aspirin and taking it when they come to see you in the hospital? Now we're getting down to part of the real problem... Identify the sources of increased costs, and find ways to pare those down.

This is not an easy task. At least one doctor and two nurses are needed in the OR for the surgery itself, and another doctor or nurse for the anesthesia. The recovery room has its own staff as well. At a minimum, you're paying at least 5 highly trained individuals for hours and hours of work before you even pay the hospital, and we haven't even gone into the visits before the surgery or how long the surgeon will treat you in the hospital afterwards, which is included in that cost. Which part of surgery would you do without? Which people do you think ought to work for free? Which resources do you think the hospital shouldn't charge for?

Absolutely right. These are all very highly trained and skilled people that must be present to administer the best medicine possible. I'm not suggesting for one second they don't deserve to be paid for their time. My question to you is still 'why does it cost so much for them to BECOME doctors, nurses and everything? Labor is always the most expensive part of any industry. If you've ever been in management like I have, you would know that. But why do doctors leave school with a quarter million or more in student debt? Why are university costs so high? Why can't we start cutting down costs there? How are universities justifying their costs when they are being subsidized or fully funded by the taxpayers in most cases?

See, you have to follow the thread in both directions. Not only where it will go, but how it got to the point where you picked it up in the first place.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

A snapshot of an economy is a finite number. It shows you what's happening at that moment. A real economy grows or shrinks depending on policy. You believe that to earn money, you have to prevent someone else from earning it, don't you?

No, and that's not what we're discussing either. Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their life. This is not an economy such as color TV sales. EVERYONE is in on it. That finite number I mentioned is the American population.

Whaaaaaa? That's supposed to make sense? Let's look at real world examples: The house purchase credit, energy efficient appliances credit and Cash for Clunkers. All offered subsidies caused a jump in sales of those industries. Why? Because the prices were cheaper to the consumer. I know people who rushed out to buy new appliances before the deadline. Cash for Clunkers was touted as a 'success' by leftists who wanted to expand and extend it because it helped spawn auto sales. Now... all those things have ended. What happened? Those markets crashed back to or even LOWER than what they were before the credit was offered. Why? Because the market was artificially influenced by an unsustainable subsidy. Sorry, economics proves you wrong once again.

Sorry, reading comprehension proves to be escaping you once again. The comment had nothing to do with incentivization. Please go reread.

Maintaining the status quo is a poor decision with regards to cost containment.

And that's what Obamacare will do. Actually, it will make it far worse because you've removed the consumer from direct impact of pricing even more. Bureaucrats don't give a shit about how much something costs, as long as it's not "their" money.

You think it will maintain the status quo by making it worse? I don't think you understand what the term "status quo" means then. Adding a public option would disrupt the status quo.

Believing the government could not establish a new type of self-sustaining operation is unsupported speculation.

Then you should have many examples of current government programs not fraught with waste, fraud, incompetence and misuse. Please, I'd love to hear them.

You think that establishing a NEW type of SELF-SUSTAINING operation should have prior examples? That wouldn't make it new or self-sustaining then, would it? Again, I can't help but question your reading comprehension. Do you just overlook words or not know what they mean? Wait let me guess, you're about to prove your literacy with lolcats.

Did you read the wikipedia article yet?

Never saw a link. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I've posted it twice now, and pasted excerpts from it. Well that explains the question about you just overlooking various parts of posts. Here's the link for the third time: Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, like when there is a flood of claims they must pay out on that can potentially bankrupt the insurance company. You DO understand how this industry works, don't you?

You do realize they receive their money BEFORE giving people the insurance, right? You know there's a large reservoir to draw from over the course of the entire year, and that at the end of each year they CONSISTENTLY come up with 3-6% more money than they needed to dole out, don't you? When was the last time a health insurance company went bankrupt? I'm just giddy to hear more of your completely imaginary ideas.

Define "exact same thing" please. There are many different products out there for insurance.

OK that answers the question about you understanding the meanings of simple terms. Fire the lolcats!

And when the government punks out and can't afford to pay, who's going to bail them out? You act like you think that can't happen.

Remind me again when the last time a health insurance company went out of business?
Perhaps you should do a bit more reading on the topic: What If My Insurance Company Goes Bankrupt?

As I said, it's only people like you who go bankrupt and leave their medical bills to everyone else. It's funny that someone who is the classic profile of the problem is so loudly speaking on the topic.

As a matter of fact, the benefits package included a dental insurance form that just proves that. I can only go to doctors in "Their Network". If I go outside of it, I must pay for it myself. This is not uncommon to any insurance type. You use their glass installers, their roofing companies, their doctors, yadda yadda yadda. If they don't do the procedure you want, you have to shell out as it will be uncovered. If my doctor isn't on there, I cannot choose my own healthcare.

You don't have or never shopped for insurance, or never went through a workplace benefits seminar. That's becoming quite obvious.

You don't even have health insurance. That's become quite obvious. Once again you miss the point in that the government policy did not prevent people from seeing certain healthcare providers. You can't point to a single quote from any government policy on this topic, active or defeated, that said patients could not choose which doctor to use.

Sharing risk is the problem? By who's standard??? You realize that insurance companies share data with each other to help price risk properly, right? They then price themselves accordingly. Some accuse them of having an illegal trust, when in the end, it saves you money. If it's just the government, who's going to price risk?

First off, Obama never wanted it to be JUST the government. It was always about a public option in addition to all private options. Thus it's called OPTION. Furthermore, you miss the point once again. Risk sharing is done by the people paying for the insurance and healthcare in relation to themselves AND the people not paying. We're not talking about insurance companies performing risk-cost analysis. We're talking about money in and money out, plain and simple. If 10 people put money in and 20 take it out, that's not sharing the risk too well. You can see it as the rich paying for the poor, but really it's the healthy paying for the sick, as far as their wallets and stubbornness allows.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well, it involves all the skilled people that need to be paid,

That's correct. People need to be paid fairly for work they provide. Medical care is a trade. Services and goods for profit. It is no different than farming, water purification, electricity or Ipods.

Except it IS. It's a LOT different. Saying healthcare is a commodity equal to iPods is equating the necessary quality of living to the very Unnecessary consumer items. Again, we're talking about necessary shared commodities. TVs and trips to Paris do not apply.

Now ask yourself WHY are these things so expensive? I mean we know that there is no such thing as a toilet seat worth $500 bucks, though military contractors charged that much for it. So, why is that stapler so expensive?

Because they are patented items. They don't use the swingline staplers found on any given cubicle desk. It is especially made for the purpose of specific surgical procedures. As I mentioned previously, the cost comes from research, development, and proprietary information.

I'm sure surgery would be cheaper if we used older or outdated technologies that produce worse outcomes. Would you be willing to undergo such a surgery with your life on the line?

I'm not suggesting for one second they don't deserve to be paid for their time. My question to you is still 'why does it cost so much for them to BECOME doctors, nurses and everything? Labor is always the most expensive part of any industry. If you've ever been in management like I have, you would know that. But why do doctors leave school with a quarter million or more in student debt? Why are university costs so high? Why can't we start cutting down costs there? How are universities justifying their costs when they are being subsidized or fully funded by the taxpayers in most cases?

How do you think medical and nursing students are trained? They just purchase books and figure it out by themselves? No! Both classroom and clinical training is taught by other professionals. You said it yourself: they deserve to be paid for their time, but the fact remains that doctors and nurses who take time out of their schedule to teach usually wind up making LESS money for doing so.

But what you are also overlooking is the time cost to medical professionals. Surgeons require 4 years of medical school where they PAY to be there, followed by 5-7 years of surgical training, followed by 1-3 years of specializing, where they get less than minimum wage. Even without the debt, do you really expect them to come out and continue working for beans after sacrificing years of their life being pushed in ways you can't even imagine?

 

[Big Fitz]

I've posted it twice now, and pasted excerpts from it. Well that explains the question about you just overlooking various parts of posts. Here's the link for the third time: Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wait... what's this 'article' in Wikipedia supposed to prove? All it seems to be after going through it is a collection of quotes of far leftist big government types offering opinions as to why it's a good idea, criticisms of the concept, and a list of public opinion polls obviously biased (barely) towards the desire for universal healthcare.

I fail to see this as evidence of anything.

But as for the entirety of your next two posts, there is not one damn thing worth commenting on because of your intellectual dishonesty, refusal to use critical thinking or analysis, personal rancor and partisan hatred for all things free market or capitalistic. Begrudging a company from making a profit of 3-6%?

Yeah, your new moniker, Dumberthanfuck, sticks.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

wait... what's this 'article' in Wikipedia supposed to prove? All it seems to be after going through it is a collection of quotes of far leftist big government types offering opinions as to why it's a good idea, criticisms of the concept, and a list of public opinion polls obviously biased (barely) towards the desire for universal healthcare.

I fail to see this as evidence of anything.

Yes, you do fail to see. If you'd like, we can take the time to go over the actual policies as they were written up, to find the EXACT same thing. The public option was meant to serve as a self-sustaining institution, just as EVERY SINGLE health insurance provider is, but playing a zero-sum game and without the tremendous administrative overhead.

But as for the entirety of your next two posts, there is not one damn thing worth commenting on because of your intellectual dishonesty, refusal to use critical thinking or analysis, personal rancor and partisan hatred for all things free market or capitalistic. Begrudging a company from making a profit of 3-6%?

Yeah, your new moniker, Dumberthanfuck, sticks.

Translation: you have nothing but whining and name calling. Let me know when you're done with your snack time and nap so we can continue this conversation. Until then, the following points still stand:

• Doctors undergo extensive unpaid followed by low-paid training, to be paid more when training is finished
• Medical devices are costly due to R&D and proprietary use
• Healthcare is a shared necessary commodity, much like roads and public schools, and as such should not be compared to unnecessary luxuries or consumer products
• Distributing risk over a population is the best way to ensure healthcare for that population
• People like you who can't cover their own large healthcare expenses are the reason risk is not distributed well and everyone else pays more
• Open market competition promotes price reductions, and such competition is not well established in the healthcare industry today.
• There are a number of other ways to reduce cost in healthcare, but none of them address the underlying issue or risk distribution.

 

[Big Fitz]

The public option was meant to serve as a self-sustaining institution, just as EVERY SINGLE health insurance provider is

Except it won't be. Economics proves this time and time again. When the costs are not inflicted DIRECTLY on the user, the product is overconsumed and overused creating shortages and requiring rationing.

Why do you think when an awesome deal happens at the grocery store, they often say "Limit X" and limit how many a single person can buy per visit? Because there is not enough to go around for demand at that rate. And before you say it's different, you're right. Food is MORE critical a need than healthcare and still use rationing that some will try to circumvent and overuse because they are selfish and greedy.

Same will happen for medicine. There is NO way to dodge this reality of economics. Claiming it won't in 'this instance', is fucking stupid.

Right now I don't have the time or really need to address the rest of your points and show you why the public option is an abject failure. Maybe some other time when I am interested in enabling my masochism.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Except it won't be. Economics proves this time and time again. When the costs are not inflicted DIRECTLY on the user, the product is overconsumed and overused creating shortages and requiring rationing.

Except every profitable health insurance company in the country has already proven you wrong in that institutions can and do exist that are self-sustaining in this field.

Why do you think when an awesome deal happens at the grocery store, they often say "Limit X" and limit how many a single person can buy per visit? Because there is not enough to go around for demand at that rate.

Because it's a MARKETING STRATEGY! Are you really so naive to believe that businesses are spending time trying to figure out how their sale on canned beans can benefit everyone out of the kindness of their own hearts? You really think a profit-driven market cares how they sell their entire stock? That's hilarious. It's designed to get people to purchase by making the mistake you just made. There's no actual shortage of canned beans that needs to be sparingly distributed. But it made you believe there was, so you went to that store to buy them, and a few other full-priced items while you're there.

Take the tech industry. Do you really believe that Apple has trouble mass producing iPhones? Nonetheless stores had "limit 2" and were sold out frequently. Remember when the Playstation 3 first came out? It too seemed to always have limits and be out of stock DESPITE IT'S LACK OF POPULARITY.

But the fact is that people are obtaining medical care REGARDLESS of whether they have insurance or not, as you are doing yourself. The limits are already lifted in medicine.

Right now I don't have the time or really need to address the rest of your points and show you why the public option is an abject failure. Maybe some other time when I am interested in enabling my masochism.

Yes I've noticed this seems to be your strategy on these boards: make crappy points, get them completely demolished, and then claim that either the other person is too dumb, or you are too busy, or you are not interested, etc etc etc etc while not actually supporting anything you said or refuting what the other person said. I get it: you have nothing. You might as well not bother posting in the first place.

 

[auditor0007]

That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.

So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?

Considering that currently healthcare is paid for both directly and through government, I'm not sure there is one straight forward answer, unless of course, one would support complete government control through a single payer system. That is not likely the answer to help reduce costs. However, there is no way we will or can ever get government completely out of healthcare. And as the average age of our society continues to climb higher, the fact is that more medical care will be paid for via the government through Medicare. No matter where we head, everyone realizes that there is no such thing as free healthcare, unless of course you are so poor that you receive all other types of government help also.

Insurance companies have been part of the problem because they limit who can and cannot receive coverage and in many cases treatment. That being said, insurance companies alone are not the reason costs have increased so much over the last thirty years. The real culprit is the providers themselves. Why is it that a liver transplant costs $350,000 in the US but only $60,000 in India, Taiwan, Malaysia, or a number of other countries? And for that $60,000, you get the gold treatment in those countries.

Here is the real problem with insurance companies. They make an extremely low profit margin. However, that small margin is on a tremendous amount of revenue. Increasing profit margins is not really possible. So how do insurance companies increase profits? This is where it gets interesting. Insurance companies contract with healthcare providers to pay a certain amount for any given procedure or treatment. The providers try to get as much as they possibly can. This only makes sense as they are in business to make money too. The problem is that the insurance companies have no incentive to force providers to lower their costs, because that is in direct conflict with their own interests. Insurance companies want to see higher provider costs, because this is how they increase their own profits, by passing on the cost to their policyholders.

What we have is a situation where there is no reward for true competition. So the answer would seem simple. Make people pay out of pocket for their medical expenses, and costs would come down because providers would actually have to compete with each other. The problem with this is that when and individual becomes sick, they can't afford treatment for something major. Not everyone becomes deathly ill and needs $500,000 worth of medical care at any given time. Heck, most don't need $100,000 worth of medical care at any given time. Yet needing that would bankrupt most people, so we have a need for insurance, which brings us back to square one where this reduces the environment for real competition.

To me, the only viable answer is to get employers out of the business of providing insurance to their employees. Make people responsible for their own healthcare rather than their employers. Don't allow pre-existing conditions to be a determining factor as to whether or not a person can purchase insurance, but give people a real option when it comes to insurance policies. In the end, we would see most minor medical bills paid for out of pocket, with high deductible health insurance policies and more Health Savings Accounts or something similar.

 

[Big Fitz]

Except every profitable health insurance company in the country has already proven you wrong in that institutions can and do exist that are self-sustaining in this field.

Because they price risk according to actual worth, not artificially low like the gubmint plan MUST be to be universal. Therefore it is NOT like a private company because taxation most certainly will be used to cover up their shortcomings. Just like Amtrak and the USPS, they all end up begging for more revenue from the taxpayer trough.

I would like you to name ONE government agency that is totally self sufficient, and gains no help from taxes.

Because it's a MARKETING STRATEGY!

You really don't know a damn thing about economic theory or application, do you.

Are you really so naive to believe that businesses are spending time trying to figure out how their sale on canned beans can benefit everyone out of the kindness of their own hearts?

Thank you for destroying your entire argument on why there needs to be an 'affordable government option' when the need is taken care of by the free private market. Kindness of the heart has zero value and therefore cannot be used as a factor in products and services.

You really think a profit-driven market cares how they sell their entire stock?

The fact you think there's a difference between food, and medical care is just as ludicrous.

There's no actual shortage of canned beans that needs to be sparingly distributed.

You're right. Because they price the product according to costs and charge what the market will bear. There is no shortage of medicine in this country, for the most part, because its price mirrors cost plus profit based on what the market WILL bear. Why does it bear such a high cost? Because the consumers are not paying for it and therefore not directly feeling the pinch of the costs. They are insulated from the repercussions of it, and so the cost continue at inflated rates because the market so far WILL bear it.

You've also confirmed your utter lack of economic or business knowledge with this post.

But it made you believe there was, so you went to that store to buy them, and a few other full-priced items while you're there.

Unbelievable. Just friggen unbelievable. Little tip you need to learn if you ever (god forbid) are put in charge of a business. You never put something on sale when there is either a shortage, or when business is good. You put on a sale when you have a SURPLUS or you wish to draw in business when it is slow, or harm a competitor.

You have it bass ackwards. Incredible.

Of course, what you have done is mix in the concepts of 'bait and switch' as well as loss leaders without understanding the core concepts behind them. I don't have time or interest to give you a free lesson in economics of the market place, so I recommend you go take a class at an accredited school for Intro to Economics.

Take the tech industry. Do you really believe that Apple has trouble mass producing iPhones? Nonetheless stores had "limit 2" and were sold out frequently. Remember when the Playstation 3 first came out? It too seemed to always have limits and be out of stock DESPITE IT'S LACK OF POPULARITY.

Welcome to rationing. Wait till it's for appendix removal where you have to be on the 'pre-registry' list. Or knee replacement. Do you know why there are donor lists? Because there are not enough organs to go around. You want to trivialize this by saying that supplying enough iPods is the same damn thing? Fine, do so at your own peril. You prove again you don't understand the issue, it's realities and applications of solutions like Obamacare.

But the fact is that people are obtaining medical care REGARDLESS of whether they have insurance or not, as you are doing yourself.

Again, thanks for debunking your own argument for a public option or Obamacare. The free market does the job well without government interference.

And before you even go there, let's just remember how much of health costs are caused due to government mandates, government school costs, government hoops to jump through, corporate taxes and many many many other regulations that 'protect' the public.

Yes I've noticed this seems to be your strategy on these boards: make crappy points, get them completely demolished,

You have an overinflated sense of your entertainment value . An an outstandingly absurd believe that you're intelligent. I've fisked the shit out of you many times, and finally realize you are incapable of comprehending basic foundations of the discussion. Really sucks the impetus to bother with you dumberthanfuck. It's up to you to bring something to the discussion other than faint understanding of the concepts to make you worth the time.

I'm still waiting to post something that wouldn't get you an 'F' in an economics class.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Because they price risk according to actual worth, not artificially low like the gubmint plan MUST be to be universal.

Who said the government option was universal? Again, you seem to exhibit a lack of knowledge on this topic. As you said, private companies price their money in against their money out. The government can do the EXACT SAME THING, but without inflating for profit, and at a much more efficient and lower costing administrative overhead. This is also well documented: as screwy as the government can be, it still runs health insurance more efficiently than the private sector. That's sad.

I would like you to name ONE government agency that is totally self sufficient, and gains no help from taxes.

Did you miss the last three times I mentioned this would be a paradigm of a government agency? But to answer your question anyway:
Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > Are Toll Roads Subsidized or Self-Supporting?
Florida's Turnpike - The Less Stressway™ | About Us | Frequently Asked Questions

Because it's a MARKETING STRATEGY!

You really don't know a damn thing about economic theory or application, do you.

And your explanation for limiting the number of items a person can buy is because there's a genuine shortage and these companies want to spread the good item out of the kindness of their own hearts? That's delusional.
http://ezinearticles.com/?30-Coupon-Disclaimers-to-Eliminate-Customer-Disputes&id=2351278
http://ezinearticles.com/?Know-The-Most-Common-Marketing-Strategies---And-Save&id=5394009
Why put a "limit per customer" on a product? - Yahoo! Small Business

I don't suppose you have any supporting evidence? No, I wouldn't want you breaking your streak now.

The fact you think there's a difference between food, and medical care is just as ludicrous.

You find it odd that there's a difference between food and medical care? Do you eat your medical care or am I missing something here?

You're right. Because they price the product according to costs and charge what the market will bear. There is no shortage of medicine in this country, for the most part, because its price mirrors cost plus profit based on what the market WILL bear. Why does it bear such a high cost? Because the consumers are not paying for it and therefore not directly feeling the pinch of the costs. They are insulated from the repercussions of it, and so the cost continue at inflated rates because the market so far WILL bear it.

You've also confirmed your utter lack of economic or business knowledge with this post.

Yes we've already established you have a habit of saying "no you're wrong and dumb" or posting lolcats without actually being able to support a thing you say. I get it. You should try to change that at some point.

While it is true that removing consumers from seeing prices allows for inflation, a point that no one in this entire thread has contested, the concept works at both the care giving and insurance pricing level. There's a reason why insurance company profits were at an all time high during a recession in the last year. Both areas need to be addressed. Seeing as you and every other conservative has come up with ZERO solutions to the former, the government can address the latter by providing a self-sustaining break-even organization.

The dumb thing, as addressed by countless politicians, is to throw our hands in the air and claim we should do nothing because we can't fix everything at the same time. Ridiculous.

Unbelievable. Just friggen unbelievable. Little tip you need to learn if you ever (god forbid) are put in charge of a business. You never put something on sale when there is either a shortage, or when business is good. You put on a sale when you have a SURPLUS or you wish to draw in business when it is slow, or harm a competitor.

You have it bass ackwards. Incredible.

You are mixing two issues here. First is sale pricing, and the other is customer limits. I've already addressed the latter. As for sale pricing: you seem to have a poor grasp of what "sale" means to many companies. Here's a hint: putting a regularly-priced $100 item at $120 on "sale" for $100 drives business. Did you really think Apple has a SHORTAGE of iPhones when only 5 come into a store per day, and Sony has a SHORTAGE of PS3s even though they aren't selling? You have a decent idea of the basic economic concepts of supply and demand. The higher level marketing tactics appear to elude you yet again.
Loss leader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You should do some more reading. Notice how this article states "Loss leaders are often scarce, to discourage stockpiling. ... The retailer will often limit how much a customer can buy." Exactly what I just said, in contradiction to what you just said. Come back when you can provide a link to anything that supports what you say.

Welcome to rationing. Wait till it's for appendix removal where you have to be on the 'pre-registry' list. Or knee replacement. Do you know why there are donor lists? Because there are not enough organs to go around. You want to trivialize this by saying that supplying enough iPods is the same damn thing? Fine, do so at your own peril. You prove again you don't understand the issue, it's realities and applications of solutions like Obamacare.

No. No one in this thread has stated that purposely withholding iPods is equivalent to organ donation. Try to avoid the strawman arguments, and stop confusing costs of insurance and associated marketing techniques, with primary health care costs. Appendix removals are emergent and are never rationed. Poor example on your part.

But the fact is that people are obtaining medical care REGARDLESS of whether they have insurance or not, as you are doing yourself.

Again, thanks for debunking your own argument for a public option or Obamacare. The free market does the job well without government interference.

You think the free market is doing a good job? We pay more for health insurance than most other countries in the free world and we have worse outcomes, and you think that's getting the job done well? Ridiculous. Maintaining the status quo means that whenever people like you want to be deadbeats instead of paying for their own healthcare, everyone who does pay suffers for it.

Yes I've noticed this seems to be your strategy on these boards: make crappy points, get them completely demolished,

You have an overinflated sense of your entertainment value . An an outstandingly absurd believe that you're intelligent. I've fisked the shit out of you many times, and finally realize you are incapable of comprehending basic foundations of the discussion. Really sucks the impetus to bother with you dumberthanfuck. It's up to you to bring something to the discussion other than faint understanding of the concepts to make you worth the time.

I'm still waiting to post something that wouldn't get you an 'F' in an economics class.

Sorry I'll start making comments that are of your caliber and quality instead of providing sources that support everything I say: