Is medicine artificially inflated?

[Luddly Neddite]

Perhaps we should be grateful that we live in a time when incredible surgeries and treatments are even possible rather than complaining about how expensive they are.

That depends.

I have excellent insurance so I get what I want.

There is absolutely no doubt that if I did not have this insurance, I would not be getting the care I get. Its just simply fact. If you can't pay, you get the basics at the emergency room and then you're tossed out with the "recommendation" that you see "your doctor" asap.

You can "complain about how expensive it is all you want" but, in the US, if you don't have insurance, you don't get care.

I'm not saying it isn't sad, but someone has to pay for the services. It's not fair that people who can't afford insurance get cancer or heart problems, but it's even less fair for dozens of healthcare officials to have to give service at a loss. Maybe government healthcare is the solution, but don't blame the doctors. Their profits are a minor contributor to the entire costs of healthcare.

Where did I say "blame the doctors"?

 

[dblack]

I've posted many links to facts about the law.

I have not seen even one FACTUAL source for what you say. Please post them because I would really like to read them.

What are you even talking about? We're discussing the possible repercussions of a new law that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. Obviously there are no 'factual sources' concerning how it will play out. We'll have to see what happens.

But, as far as the 'facts' are concerned, those that you have posted bear out my observation that this is a radical centralization of control over how we pay for health care. We are now legally required, at the federal level, to purchase government-approved health insurance from government-approved vendors. The decisions of the agency in charge of stipulating the details of these requirements will make or break insurance companies. Surely you can see how the industry will do everything within it's power to control this process. Do you really think you and I have a shot at winning out over the army of well-paid lobbyists that will descend on DC when this thing is in full effect?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I've posted many links to facts about the law.

I have not seen even one FACTUAL source for what you say. Please post them because I would really like to read them.

What are you even talking about? We're discussing the possible repercussions of a new law that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. Obviously there are no 'factual sources' concerning how it will play out. We'll have to see what happens.

But, as far as the 'facts' are concerned, those that you have posted bear out my observation that this is a radical centralization of control over how we pay for health care. We are now legally required, at the federal level, to purchase government-approved health insurance from government-approved vendors. The decisions of the agency in charge of stipulating the details of these requirements will make or break insurance companies. Surely you can see how the industry will do everything within it's power to control this process. Do you really think you and I have a shot at winning out over the army of well-paid lobbyists that will descend on DC when this thing is in full effect?

What I am talking about is your declarative statement in this post -

Not so much funny as tragic. It "works" that way because the AMA and its "partners" (see my previous post for short list) have colluded to create what amounts to a health care cartel that holds us hostage by controlling our access to health care. PPACA codifies this effort into law, and is the next step in centralizing control over one of our most basic needs.

Now you're pulling a Mitt - backing off, flip flopping, changing your wording to

possible repercussions

.

The health insurance industry, the drug pushers, the lobbyists (including the AMA) currently control every aspect of our medical treatment. To say that we will suddenly lose control over "the army of well-paid lobbyists" who exert that control is naive.

I've been reading everything I can find about the Affordable Care Act, including going back to where it originated with Robert Dole. Earlier, you said you had "seen too many of these 'reforms' go down". How is that possible? There have been a total of three ... Hawaii, which Lush (whale ho) Rimbaugh, ignorant of the true nature of Hawaii's system, declared to be excellent and not in need of being changed, Mass which has been a resounding success, or so say those who live with it. And, ObamaCare. (I'm not counting the tax funded health insurance that our congress enjoys while they work hard to deny us the same quality of care.)

While its true that the pubpots also denied some of the better aspects of the original bill, most of what remains is not friendly to what you rightly call cartels.

Fact is, if this law was known as the RepubCare or MittCare, you rw's would be lined up for your share. Because it was passed by President Obama, you are willfully blind to the positive aspects of the bill.

The GObP/putpots will indeed try to repeal it but I believe and certainly hope, they will be unsuccessful.

If Affordable Care is here to stay, wouldn't it make sense for rw's to learn how it benefits them. Doesn't that really make more sense than the constant whining of half truths and outright lies? Like the old saw says, you're cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

But, hey, that really IS your choice.

 

[dblack]

I've posted many links to facts about the law.

I have not seen even one FACTUAL source for what you say. Please post them because I would really like to read them.

What are you even talking about? We're discussing the possible repercussions of a new law that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. Obviously there are no 'factual sources' concerning how it will play out. We'll have to see what happens.

But, as far as the 'facts' are concerned, those that you have posted bear out my observation that this is a radical centralization of control over how we pay for health care. We are now legally required, at the federal level, to purchase government-approved health insurance from government-approved vendors. The decisions of the agency in charge of stipulating the details of these requirements will make or break insurance companies. Surely you can see how the industry will do everything within it's power to control this process. Do you really think you and I have a shot at winning out over the army of well-paid lobbyists that will descend on DC when this thing is in full effect?

What I am talking about is your declarative statement in this post -

Not so much funny as tragic. It "works" that way because the AMA and its "partners" (see my previous post for short list) have colluded to create what amounts to a health care cartel that holds us hostage by controlling our access to health care. PPACA codifies this effort into law, and is the next step in centralizing control over one of our most basic needs.

Right. Covered that in the second paragraph of my post. Did you read it?

The health insurance industry, the drug pushers, the lobbyists (including the AMA) currently control every aspect of our medical treatment. To say that we will suddenly lose control over "the army of well-paid lobbyists" who exert that control is naive.

We don't have control over them now. What's naive is assuming that giving them even more power to control their market will make things better.

I've been reading everything I can find about the Affordable Care Act, including going back to where it originated with Robert Dole. Earlier, you said you had "seen too many of these 'reforms' go down". How is that possible?

The regulatory state doesn't begin and end with health care. The common pattern of the regulatory state limits competition and ensures the profits of the corporations with the power and influence to manipulate the process in their favor. We've already seen this overwhelmingly just in the process of getting PPACA off the ground. It will mushroom as it gains momentum.

Fact is, if this law was known as the RepubCare or MittCare, you rw's would be lined up for your share. Because it was passed by President Obama, you are willfully blind to the positive aspects of the bill.

Watch where you're slinging the 'you' there. Those aren't my views at all. I think I've made that abundantly clear. And while I can't stop you from labeling me with whatever suits your agenda, the entire right-wing/left-wing distinction is puppet theater, in my view, and little more than a distraction from the real issues we face.

The GObP/putpots will indeed try to repeal it ...

Romney won't. I guarantee it.

If Affordable Care is here to stay, wouldn't it make sense for rw's to learn how it benefits them. Doesn't that really make more sense than the constant whining of half truths and outright lies? Like the old saw says, you're cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

Again with the 'rw' reference?? Anyway, you're right here. If it is here to stay, I plan to 'game' the fucking thing for all it's worth. We should all look for every conceivable way to cheat the insurance companies out of their pound of flesh. There are usually holes in these kinds of things for devious people to figure out how to benefit from them. It's kind of a pain in the ass to deal with, and prompts us to do all kinds of things that don't make any practical sense, bit it might be the only way to avoid a tag-team gang banging from government and the insurance industry simultaneously.

 

[atlasshrugged]

With recent changes to healthcare, I've heard dozens of people act as if the doctors have a monopoly and that they only charge so much because us suckers are willing to pay it. When you see a doctor with a big paycheck, it's easy to assume that the reason healthcare is so expensive is because the doctor is overpaid. But I recently wondered how much of a bill actually goes to him or her. So I crunched the numbers.

If a surgeon (making $300,000 annually) works 250 days, he/she would be making $150 an hour. That still seems high until you look at it from the perspective of a single patient. If I were to have this surgeon operate on my heart (let's say a 4 hour surgery) that means only $600 go to the surgeon. I don't know about you, but I'll gladly give $600 to anyone with the knowledge to operate on my heart.

The real costs lie in things like administration, your own health insurance company, expensive supplies and machines, and malpractice insurance. It's sad that healthcare costs so much, but few of these costs are avoidable and virtually none are the result of greedy doctors charging more than they are worth. Anytime you visit the doctor, you are using the services of dozens of people (nurses, medical assistants, administration, engineers who design equipment, factories who assemble equipment, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, delivery of supplies, etc).

Perhaps we should be grateful that we live in a time when incredible surgeries and treatments are even possible rather than complaining about how expensive they are.

Grateful, my ass. It's fair to say the doctors aren't pocketing all the money. There are plenty of others lining up at the trough - hospitals, big pharma, insurance cos, lobbyists, lawyers, etc, etc... They're all happy to profit from a rigged game that does, in fact, artificially inflate health care prices.

You are probably right there. But most people I've heard act like physicians at a private practice are charging these outrageous prices and inflating the prices. Administration costs could definitely be trimmed. But cutting doctor's salaries would, at best, cut $40 off your bill.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What are you even talking about? We're discussing the possible repercussions of a new law that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. Obviously there are no 'factual sources' concerning how it will play out. We'll have to see what happens.

But, as far as the 'facts' are concerned, those that you have posted bear out my observation that this is a radical centralization of control over how we pay for health care. We are now legally required, at the federal level, to purchase government-approved health insurance from government-approved vendors. The decisions of the agency in charge of stipulating the details of these requirements will make or break insurance companies. Surely you can see how the industry will do everything within it's power to control this process. Do you really think you and I have a shot at winning out over the army of well-paid lobbyists that will descend on DC when this thing is in full effect?

What I am talking about is your declarative statement in this post -

Right. Covered that in the second paragraph of my post. Did you read it? [Yes I did and no you didn't. You sidestepped just as you've sidestepped most of this.]



We don't have control over them now. Yes, That's what I already wrote. What's naive is assuming that giving them even more power to control their market will make things better.



The regulatory state doesn't begin and end with health care. The common pattern of the regulatory state limits competition and ensures the profits of the corporations with the power and influence to manipulate the process in their favor. We've already seen this overwhelmingly just in the process of getting PPACA off the ground. It will mushroom as it gains momentum.



Watch where you're slinging the 'you' there. Those aren't my views at all. I think I've made that abundantly clear. And while I can't stop you from labeling me with whatever suits your agenda, the entire right-wing/left-wing distinction is puppet theater, in my view, and little more than a distraction from the real issues we face.

The GObP/putpots will indeed try to repeal it ...

Romney won't. I guarantee it.

If Affordable Care is here to stay, wouldn't it make sense for rw's to learn how it benefits them. Doesn't that really make more sense than the constant whining of half truths and outright lies? Like the old saw says, you're cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

Again with the 'rw' reference?? Anyway, you're right here. If it is here to stay, I plan to 'game' the fucking thing for all it's worth. We should all look for every conceivable way to cheat the insurance companies out of their pound of flesh. There are usually holes in these kinds of things for devious people to figure out how to benefit from them. It's kind of a pain in the ass to deal with, and prompts us to do all kinds of things that don't make any practical sense, bit it might be the only way to avoid a tag-team gang banging from government and the insurance industry simultaneously.

I know you won't actually answer but these caught my eye -

We've already seen this overwhelmingly just in the process of getting PPACA off the ground.

Where?

... prompts us to do all kinds of things that don't make any practical sense ...

Since I am finding it easy to navigate and understand, I'd like to know what these "impractical things" are.

As for the rest, you say one thing as though its fact and then another, you bob and weave and then suddenly repeat what I wrote as though you never saw it before. You infer that I said MitWit will try to repeal the ACA when in fact, what I have always said about him is that he will go with whomever pays him the most money. That would be Kochs, Adelson, Bush's Brain - the PACs.

You write like you really have no idea but you have lots to regurgitate from the right wing. (rw's)

Enough.

Either back up what you say with verifiable facts or admit its all just blowing smoke cuz I can't find even one fact in your posts. Not saying you can't have all the opinions you want but don't tell me they are not opinions.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Came back to say, for the most part, I agree with this. I hate insurance companies and I hate having to have insurance. I see it as an evil necessity.

If it is here to stay, I plan to 'game' the fucking thing for all it's worth. We should all look for every conceivable way to cheat the insurance companies out of their pound of flesh. There are usually holes in these kinds of things for devious people to figure out how to benefit from them.

I referred to you as "rw" because, frankly, you don't seem to know very much about AHC. Its like Santorum said, the right is never gonna get the smart ones and the rw's take pride in being ignorant on many issues.

Like some of the posts here -

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...are/237975-a-drs-new-health-care-opinion.html

I got my letter yesterday. My doctor is on leave until mid-november when he will make his decision on whether to continue to keep his practice open at all.

My Dr. says his earnings will drop about 50%.

My gynocologist went to all cash when obamacare was signed into law.

Blatant lies and not very smart. Like, doctors will suffer from having more patients but WAY fewer deadbeats?

All this misinformation makes it pretty obvious that people are not aware of the facts.

 

[dblack]

Came back to say, for the most part, I agree with this. I hate insurance companies and I hate having to have insurance. I see it as an evil necessity.

If it is here to stay, I plan to 'game' the fucking thing for all it's worth. We should all look for every conceivable way to cheat the insurance companies out of their pound of flesh. There are usually holes in these kinds of things for devious people to figure out how to benefit from them.

It's not a necessity. There's any number of ways people might choose to pay for health care. It is, however, now a legal requirement, thanks to the law you're defending.

I referred to you as "rw" because, frankly, you don't seem to know very much about AHC. Its like Santorum said, the right is never gonna get the smart ones and the rw's take pride in being ignorant on many issues.

You've pointed out nothing I hadn't already read about the bill, so I'm not sure what you're imagining here.

Like some of the posts here -

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...are/237975-a-drs-new-health-care-opinion.html

I got my letter yesterday. My doctor is on leave until mid-november when he will make his decision on whether to continue to keep his practice open at all.

My Dr. says his earnings will drop about 50%.

My gynocologist went to all cash when obamacare was signed into law.

Blatant lies and not very smart. Like, doctors will suffer from having more patients but WAY fewer deadbeats?

All this misinformation makes it pretty obvious that people are not aware of the facts.

You really have no idea whether these are lies or true stories. Regardless, these are anecdotes and opinions - and don't have much to do with 'facts' one way or another. (and fwiw, you've seemed to have conveniently forgotten my posts on this thread as I was disputing exactly these views.)

Droning on about 'facts' doesn't give us much insight into how this will play out - unless of course someone is truly misinformed about details of the law. But that's not the case with most of us here. We've read it, read about it, and discussed its stipulations ad nauseum, yet we still disagree on what its impact will be.

Your view is no more 'fact' based than mine, or anyone else here. You're assuming that the increased regulation and collusion between government and the insurance industry will make things better for health care consumers. I think that's unlikely. Call me cynical, but I'm betting on the team with all the lobbyists and lawyers that money can buy. Congress essentially sold us to the insurance industry in exchange for getting cut in on the action. Despicable.

 

[uscitizen]

CVS to pay $5M to settle drug pricing allegations

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice said Monday that a unit of CVS Caremark Corp. has agreed to pay $5.25 million to settle allegations that it reported false information on prescription drug prices to the government's Medicare program.

Federal investigators said CVS' RxAmerica subsidiary reported false information about the prices of generic prescription drugs between 2007 and 2008. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services used this information in a website called Plan Finder, which seniors could use to estimate their out-of-pocket drug expenses. But Department of Justice officials said the actual drug prices offered by the company were "in some cases significantly higher" than those submitted for use on the website.



CVS to pay $5M to settle drug pricing allegations

 

[uscitizen]

Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world. "The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue."[1] National expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for 12.9% of total health care costs

Prescription drug prices in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[uscitizen]

Manufacturing and Selling Costs
The American Federation of Labor Congress of Industrial Organizations says that for every $100 in price of a prescription drug, 15 percent is for research and development costs; 26 percent is for manufacturing, executives and workers costs; 35 percent is for marketing, advertising and administrative costs; and 24 percent is net profit. There are additional costs for distribution and markup for distributors and retail pharmacies before sale to the consumer.



Prescription Drug Cost Vs. Sale Price | LIVESTRONG.COM

Pharma spends over twice as much in advertising as R&D.

 

[uscitizen]

Why are Canadian Drug Prices Lower?
Some news sources would have you believe that drug prices are lower in Canada only because the Canadian government regulates drug prices and the U.S. government does not. This is only half the story.

Government Regulation

The Canadian Patent Medicine Prices Review Board regulates drug prices to ensure that the prices of patent-protected brand-name drugs are not excessive. In the fifteen years that Canada has regulated drug prices, however, its regulatory agency has taken legal action only four times. In most cases, U.S. drug companies voluntarily lower their prices.

Uniform Drug Prices

Prices in the U.S. vary depending on the buyer’s purchasing power or lack thereof. For example, in Prescription Drug Pricing in Vermont: Drug Companies Profit at the Expense of Older Americans, the findings show that a senior citizen in Vermont paying for his or her own prescription drugs must pay, on average, twice as much for the drugs as the drug companies’ favored customers (large insurance companies and health maintenance organizations). The price of any drug in Canada, on the other hand, is the same for everyone—the government, private insurers or uninsured patients who buy retail.

Prices < Canada Drug Talk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Good posts, USCitizen. When I lived in Tucson, seniors there would organize bus loads of fellow seniors to go to Nogales Mexico to buy their prescription drugs. I used to buy a particular drug my dog was on because, if I remember the amount right, in the US it would have cost $4 a day. I can still remember that the drug store was on Calle Obregon.

Then, the US drug pushers got wind of the piddly little bit they were losing and got it stopped. The seniors could no longer get the drugs their doctors had prescribed.

Making sure granny can't get her drugs. THAT is what the rw's are fighting for.

They must be so proud.

 

[dblack]

Making sure granny can't get her drugs. THAT is what the rw's are fighting for.

They must be so proud.

lw's too! Everyone in government, it seems, wants a piece of the health care pie.

 

[auditor0007]

The bottom 10% of cardiac surgeons makes up to $259,998

The bottom 25% makes up to $329,579

The bottom 75% level makes up to $502,276

The top 10% starts at $589,916

The median personal income in the United States is about $26,507.


So the lowest paid cardiac surgeons make about 10 times the median income for all workers.


The highest paid cardiac surgeons salaries START at about 22 TIMES the US median incomes of all workers.


Are they overpaid?


Probably not.

If a cardiac surgeon performs one surgery per day, which normally takes three to five hours, and spends the rest of his/her day doing pre-op and post-op, he would have about 240 patients per year. At a salary of $590,000, that averages out to $2500 per patient.

Obviously, there are many other costs that go along with someone having open heart surgery, and there are nurses and other doctors usually involved. The cost for open heart surgery varies greatly depending on what needs to be done and how complicated it is, but it can run between $25,000 to $100,000. If you average it out at around $60,000 to $70,000, you see that is an awful lot of money. It's not so much the doctors' salaries that are the problem; it's everything else.

 

[atlasshrugged]

Prescription drug prices in the United States are the highest in the world. "The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue."[1] National expenditures on pharmaceuticals accounted for 12.9% of total health care costs

Prescription drug prices in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's because no other country has to go through such rigorous government approval. Every drug company spends hundreds of millions of dollars testing drugs and proving they are safe. Most other countries just piggy back off of US FDA approval.

 

[atlasshrugged]

The bottom 10% of cardiac surgeons makes up to $259,998

The bottom 25% makes up to $329,579

The bottom 75% level makes up to $502,276

The top 10% starts at $589,916

The median personal income in the United States is about $26,507.


So the lowest paid cardiac surgeons make about 10 times the median income for all workers.


The highest paid cardiac surgeons salaries START at about 22 TIMES the US median incomes of all workers.


Are they overpaid?


Probably not.

If a cardiac surgeon performs one surgery per day, which normally takes three to five hours, and spends the rest of his/her day doing pre-op and post-op, he would have about 240 patients per year. At a salary of $590,000, that averages out to $2500 per patient.

Obviously, there are many other costs that go along with someone having open heart surgery, and there are nurses and other doctors usually involved. The cost for open heart surgery varies greatly depending on what needs to be done and how complicated it is, but it can run between $25,000 to $100,000. If you average it out at around $60,000 to $70,000, you see that is an awful lot of money. It's not so much the doctors' salaries that are the problem; it's everything else.

Thank you! This was really my main point. It's not the Doctors who I think are greedy. $2500 for a heart surgery seems to be worth my money. It's other costs that make healthcare so expensive.

 

[Dreamy]

We are talking Pharmas and Insurance companies mixed in with lawyers=$$$$$$$$

 

[atlasshrugged]

We are talking Pharmas and Insurance companies mixed in with lawyers=$$$$$$$$

True, but they rationalize these huge charges because they have to deal with so much government intervention. FDA approval contributes a huge portion of the expenses which are passed on to the patient. Unless we remove these laws and restrictions, which increases risks, we will probably just have to accept that medicine is expensive.