Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[bripat9643]

It's great if you don't have to worry about dying for lack of healthcare. One is guaranteed a decent retirement, paid vacations, maternity leave and more.

I guess being a subject of the state has its' privileges but we've managed those things pretty well in the past with a good standard of living without being socialist.

For a minority of the people yes. The vast majority struggle every day. People say Socialism like its a bad thing,Fact is Socialism has been around in America for a very long time.

Socialism is a bad thing. We would all be a lot wealthier if it wasn't for socialist programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[bripat9643]

For a minority of the people yes. The vast majority struggle every day. People say Socialism like its a bad thing,Fact is Socialism has been around in America for a very long time.

Yeah - and it just "happens" to coincide with the failure, rise in poverty, and misery which has also been around in America for a very long time (right when the rise of the cancer known as liberalism occurred).

You are right! We should repeal all safety laws,regulations,child labor laws,minimum wage laws etc,then EVERYONE will live it high on the hog!

Yes, we should, and then we should abolish the government.

 

[Political Junky]

Yeah - and it just "happens" to coincide with the failure, rise in poverty, and misery which has also been around in America for a very long time (right when the rise of the cancer known as liberalism occurred).

You are right! We should repeal all safety laws,regulations,child labor laws,minimum wage laws etc,then EVERYONE will live it high on the hog!

Yes, we should, and then we should abolish the government.

What would you replace government with?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Could you please show where that article addresses profit. I can't find it.

Additionally, I keep seeing the 30% wasted money assertion (and I believe it).

What I find hard to understand is how anyone can think that goes on just on it's own. No company survives with that kind of waste (well, except government contractors). So what is driving it. As near as I can tell it is the cost of a screwed up insurance and medicla regulations regiment.

Regulations = Government.

If there were a way for someone to do it for less...economics tells you that is the case that they would.

I have never heard profit numbers on healthcare that showed anything but thin margins. I'd be curious to see the data you are referencing.

Which article?

However there are two points to consider. The first is having insurance companies that are allowed to make profit, and the second is having insurance companies in the first place. I've put both of those in.

But yeah, it survives probably in party because they spend a lot of money telling people how great it is.
The biggest scandal has got to be the view that to not to have this corruption is "socialist" or "communist" and all of a sudden a lot of people on the right suddenly fall into line and do what they're told.
Can't understand why the left don't spend a lot of time attacking this though. It just doesn't seem to be one of the topics that gets people going. This might change in the future, because of Obama.

How can you do it for less? Well just ask every other country. Some systems out there work and do so for much cheaper. The regulating of private companies while trying to allow them to be free market and heavily profiting seems to be the problem. Healthcare just isn't a good industry to have as for profit.

Thin margins? Well they seem to work on a 5% "thin margin". But this is a lot of money. However it's not just the profits that are the problem. The fact that it's a for profit industry means that it causes other areas of corruption.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If no profit in healthcare...logic would say no profit in housing, transportation, food, clothing......

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Um, you do realize that people also face life and death without food, don't you?

Also, people who work a "normal job" can also afford healthcare. Minimum wage workers at McDonald's have exceptional health insurance.

It's like a revolving door this argument. No matter how many times you respond, someone always comes back with the same question over and over and over again.

Look, there's a big difference between going down to the shop to have a snack and going into hospital with cancer, don't you think?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What difference does it make that health issues can happen "suddenly" and "arbitrarily" while food is a consistent need?

In each case, as long as you plan, you will never have a problem. I've never had cancer (thank God), but I carry health insurance just in case I do.

The difference is actually in the way it's administered.
Other countries also have health insurance that you buy, but they've managed to make it so that the corruption levels just aren't there.
I'm not opposed to health insurance.


What is happening in the US with corruption, massive over spending and so on, shows that it simply isn't working. Why do the for profit food market, housing market and so on work and the healthcare system doesn't?

It appears to me like this.
You don't pay the people who are doing the work. You pay the insurance company. So the people who do the work have no need to keep costs down, there's absolutely nothing that forces them to keep costs down, to reduce administration, to not use expensive drugs, to not do 100 tests when 2 would do etc. All because a patient doesn't choose the hospital or the doctor, and the choice isn't necessarily based on efficiency.

The insurance companies might want to offer lower policies, but they have to pay out for the admin and so on, all of them do, so prices have to be high anyway. They want their profit and they make more profit because of the admin and so on, they have no reason to demand that it goes down. If they're getting 5% and 30% of that 5% comes from corruption, then they're getting 30% more money.

The whole system doesn't work.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

And with the government, I have to pay for them to waste trillions of dollars. I have to pay for fraud. I have to pay for abuse.

When push comes to shove, I'm guaranteed to not get what I paid for. Nothing makes the Dumbocrats smile like a person dying in their 50's as it means they paid into Social Security for a lifetime but won't be able to draw one damn dime of it and neither will their family (in many cases). The federal government will put in the maximum effort (from the money I paid) into making sure they don't actually have to pay me.

And you know why you have to pay for fraud and abuse? Because the govt is a monopoly too.

Maybe if you supported Proportional Representation then this might actually change.

 

[bripat9643]

If no profit in healthcare...logic would say no profit in housing, transportation, food, clothing......

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

How does the frequency mean that the former should be profit driven and not the later?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't get to "see it" any way chief. We have this thing called a "constitution" and it is the law (the highest law in the land in fact). It outlines the rolls and responsibilities of the federal government.

You don't get to dictate to the masses how things should be because that's how you "see it".

Oh, and get this. The UK is currently working on decentralizing their healthcare system because they can't afford it

Well I don't get to dictate to the masses simply because I'm not a politician.

The constitution, well seeing as most Americans treat it as toilet paper when it doesn't suit them and then revere it when it does suit them, what does the constitution mean in the modern day and age?

Then again "The Congress shall have power To....provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States;"

Oh, and get this. The UK is currently reducing the amount it spends, which is actually lower than the US govt spends on healthcare. Yeah, lower!!

And why? Actually it's ideological.

They're destroying the NHS because they want people to spend MORE. Why? Because of healthcare providers are making lots of money, they'll give the Tory Party lots of money in thanks and the Tories will be rich.
They're also destroying education and other such things.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How does the frequency mean that the former should be profit driven and not the later?

Let's try to explain with a little story.
I have a carrot. It's a special carrot but it's an expensive special carrot. You may need it in your life to deal with the Wicked Witch from the West or you may not ever need it.

I'll sell it to you for $1000.

You decide you don't want to waste $1000.

Then 30 years later the Wicked Witch from the West comes along and put a magic spell on you. You realise what the carrot is for now. So you come to me with your $1000 and say "I'd like to buy the carrot"

I say "$50,000 please"

"But you said it was only $1000"

Yeah, that's when you didn't need it. Now you need it, I'm going to charge a fortune.

(Yeah, yeah, I could have just said it, but this is the mood I'm in I guess).

But this is only the start. Because of this you take out insurance. You pay me $100 a year every year in case the Wicked Witch turns up. But the Wicked Witch turns up and I don't bother giving the carrot because I made some small print which means I don't have to.

Damn, you've spent all that money and now you need the carrot you're going to have to pay the $50,000 on top of the $100 a year anyway. Ouch.

So the king sees there's a massive problem and regulates the insurance of special carrots.


Well, back to the real world.

Once you have the regulation of insurance, people are still able to make a ton of corruption. I don't pay the hospital. I pay the insurance company. Why does the hospital need to keep costs down? It doesn't, it gets paid no matter what. Either from the insurance company, the govt or the patient.

Costs go sky high, the insurance companies have no desire to get costs down, the hospital has no desire to get costs down.

The people don't seem to care either, seeing as the words "socialist" and "communist" get brought out by those who seek to profit from the whole thing.

 

[P@triot]

Um, you do realize that people also face life and death without food, don't you?

Also, people who work a "normal job" can also afford healthcare. Minimum wage workers at McDonald's have exceptional health insurance.

It's like a revolving door this argument. No matter how many times you respond, someone always comes back with the same question over and over and over again.

Look, there's a big difference between going down to the shop to have a snack and going into hospital with cancer, don't you think?

Lack of food is guaranteed to kill you. Is there a guarantee that you will develop cancer in your lifetime? Do you see how dumb your argument is now?

 

[P@triot]

And with the government, I have to pay for them to waste trillions of dollars. I have to pay for fraud. I have to pay for abuse.

When push comes to shove, I'm guaranteed to not get what I paid for. Nothing makes the Dumbocrats smile like a person dying in their 50's as it means they paid into Social Security for a lifetime but won't be able to draw one damn dime of it and neither will their family (in many cases). The federal government will put in the maximum effort (from the money I paid) into making sure they don't actually have to pay me.

And you know why you have to pay for fraud and abuse? Because the govt is a monopoly too.

Maybe if you supported Proportional Representation then this might actually change.

No - we have waste, fraud, and abuse because people like you support communism. If you supported constitutional government, we wouldn't have this problem.

 

[The Rabbi]

If no profit in healthcare...logic would say no profit in housing, transportation, food, clothing......

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

What difference does it make if you need it daily or monthly or once? Once you've said healthcare is vital and therefore should be free, then anything else that is vital should also be free. What is the limiting principle?
I realize a question like that is over your ability to reason. The answer is that there is no reason because "it's vital to human life" does not translate into "every citizen is owed that by government."

 

[jillian]

If no profit in healthcare...logic would say no profit in housing, transportation, food, clothing......

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

What difference does it make if you need it daily or monthly or once? Once you've said healthcare is vital and therefore should be free, then anything else that is vital should also be free. What is the limiting principle?
I realize a question like that is over your ability to reason. The answer is that there is no reason because "it's vital to human life" does not translate into "every citizen is owed that by government."

we realize that you have no sense of reality. we realize you have no understanding of the importance of social responsibility. we realize you have no understanding of the reality of job-linked health insurance and we realize you have no understanding about the ACA and the reasons for the mandate.

thanks for playing. perhaps you should stick to something that isn't beyond your ken.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only healthcare is different to housing, transportation, food and clothing.

Those you need daily.

What difference does it make if you need it daily or monthly or once? Once you've said healthcare is vital and therefore should be free, then anything else that is vital should also be free. What is the limiting principle?
I realize a question like that is over your ability to reason. The answer is that there is no reason because "it's vital to human life" does not translate into "every citizen is owed that by government."

we realize that you have no sense of reality. we realize you have no understanding of the importance of social responsibility. we realize you have no understanding of the reality of job-linked health insurance and we realize you have no understanding about the ACA and the reasons for the mandate.

thanks for playing. perhaps you should stick to something that isn't beyond your ken.

Was there a point in that post? Oh, no, there is never, NEVER, a point in Jillian's posts.
You dont belong in this discussion. You are merely crapping up the thread with your inane insults, "counselor."

 

[Iceweasel]

It's great if you don't have to worry about dying for lack of healthcare. One is guaranteed a decent retirement, paid vacations, maternity leave and more.

I guess being a subject of the state has its' privileges but we've managed those things pretty well in the past with a good standard of living without being socialist.

For a minority of the people yes. The vast majority struggle every day. People say Socialism like its a bad thing,Fact is Socialism has been around in America for a very long time.

That's a lie. Americans have enjoyed some of the best, if not the best quality of life on the globe, ever. Leftists lie about the reality of the matter to push their agendas. I don't define socialism as you do apparently. We've had some social programs but that doesn't make us socialists. Propagandize somebody else.

 

[Iceweasel]

For a minority of the people yes. The vast majority struggle every day. People say Socialism like its a bad thing,Fact is Socialism has been around in America for a very long time.

Yeah - and it just "happens" to coincide with the failure, rise in poverty, and misery which has also been around in America for a very long time (right when the rise of the cancer known as liberalism occurred).

You are right! We should repeal all safety laws,regulations,child labor laws,minimum wage laws etc,then EVERYONE will live it high on the hog!

Yes to minimum wage laws, but not all laws are bad or wrong. The dishonest left (redundant, I know) tries to use that as a strawman argument for the ever increasing quest for more government power. Over regulation, over taxation and over governmental interference in the market place hurts, not helps, an economy. As the country moves further left we go downhill and the left sees that as proof we need more of the same. It's insanity.

 

[P@triot]

What difference does it make that health issues can happen "suddenly" and "arbitrarily" while food is a consistent need?

In each case, as long as you plan, you will never have a problem. I've never had cancer (thank God), but I carry health insurance just in case I do.

The difference is actually in the way it's administered.

Nothing is "administered" in this country. Food is not "administered" in the U.S., it is purchased. Healthcare is not "administered" in the U.S., it is purchased. You made a silly argument and now, rather than admit it was silly, your pride is forcing you to make more and more absurd arguments to defend the initial silly position. If healthcare shouldn't be for profit because it is life or death, then neither should food or housing.

Other countries also have health insurance that you buy, but they've managed to make it so that the corruption levels just aren't there. I'm not opposed to health insurance.

There is no "corruption" in our healthcare system. You buy health insurance, you go to the hospital if/when you need to, you give hand them your health insurance card, case closed. I've done hundreds of times in my life time and I've yet to experience "corruption".

I don't understand now people like you can sit there with a straight face and complain about "corruption" in the private sector while worshiping government - the most heinous and corrupt institution in the world.

What is happening in the US with corruption, massive over spending and so on, shows that it simply isn't working. Why do the for profit food market, housing market and so on work and the healthcare system doesn't?

The only thing not working is your perception. We just had a massive housing collapse - people walked away from homes because they owed more than they were worth. But somehow, in your mind, the housing market "works" but the healthcare system doesn't? Thus far, you haven't been able to make a consistent argument on anything.

It appears to me like this.
You don't pay the people who are doing the work. You pay the insurance company. So the people who do the work have no need to keep costs down, there's absolutely nothing that forces them to keep costs down, to reduce administration, to not use expensive drugs, to not do 100 tests when 2 would do etc. All because a patient doesn't choose the hospital or the doctor, and the choice isn't necessarily based on efficiency.

Again, your perception is completely distorted. You're right, I don't pay the people doing the work. But the insurance company does - and to get the business of those insurance companies, the medical community makes deals with them. Good deals. It's very much like a co-op because the insurance companies come to the bargaining table with huge numbers - something none of us would be able to do if we paid directly.

Furthermore, back to your distorted view of how the U.S. operates, you also don't pay the farmer who is doing the work directly. You pay the grocery store (the insurance company in this case) and they pay the farmer (the doctor in this case).

The insurance companies might want to offer lower policies, but they have to pay out for the admin and so on, all of them do, so prices have to be high anyway. They want their profit and they make more profit because of the admin and so on, they have no reason to demand that it goes down. If they're getting 5% and 30% of that 5% comes from corruption, then they're getting 30% more money.

The whole system doesn't work.

Again, the only thing not working is your perception. Yes, the insurance companies have administrative costs. But you think the federal government of waste, fraud, and abuse won't have administrative costs?!?!? You don't think there is administrative costs for Social Security?!?! You don't think there is administrative costs for Medicare?!?! You don't think there is administrative costs for Welfare?!?!

The difference is, the corporation is accountable to their customers. If they are wasteful, they go out of business (just ask the endless businesses that have gone out of business in the Obama economy). The government is accountable to NOBODY and never goes out of business. It's why they have $17 trillion in debt. Show me a business that is $17 trillion in debt chief. It doesn't happen. It has never happened. And it can't happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lack of food is guaranteed to kill you. Is there a guarantee that you will develop cancer in your lifetime? Do you see how dumb your argument is now?

Let'a make this all rather nice and simple so we don't need to think about anything.

Or perhaps lets look at this properly with our brains.

Yes, lack of food will kill you. That's not the point. The point is we need food daily. The percentage of our lifetime food we eat per day is probably going to be similar to the percentage that day is worth of our lifetime.

We produce food on such a massive scale, there are so many options for eating, from really cheap to really expensive. We don't need the expensive food. It's there if we can afford it or not.
Food can be grown in the garden, it can be produced by others and comes at an affordable price, why? Because otherwise no one would buy it and would grow their own.

Healthcare on the other hand, when you need it, sometimes you need it big time. You can't grow it yourself, you often can't make it yourself. You rely on other people to do this for you, because it can actually be very, very complicated.
Healthcare is also expensive. If you get cancer, you might not be able to afford to pay for treatment, which actually happens in a large part of the world.

The fact, as you pointed out, that healthcare is so arbitrary as well is another factor. Some people just get very unlucky, and it can cost them more money than they actually have.