More of the same from Biden

OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
34,273
Reaction score
3,403
Points
1,130
I guess that's an article of faith. I think each of us has a pretty much infinite demand for health care. But you're not answering the question. When three different patients can all be saved with a ten million dollar procedure, but there's only enough money in the budget for one - who decides?
No, we do not have an infinite demand for healthcare. That's silly. Are you telling me you would go to the doctor just because it's fee? You would spend your evenings in an emergency room when you're not sick. I don't buy that.
You're so fixated on this over-utilization nonsense you're not listening. I'm not saying people will be going to the doctor just because it's "free". I'm saying that when your life is on the line, your demand for health care is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. But our capacity to pay for health care is not infinite. Someone has to make the call for whether it's worth a life's fortune to keep one person alive. If government is footing the bill, ultimately, government will be making this decision. I don't see how you can continue to deny that.
Ok, I understand
No, you're still ostriching.
Because you may demand medical procedures does not mean you're going to get them. There has to be sound evidence that a treatment will improve your condition or extend your life. For a hospital to ignore this means they will not be paid and may even be sued.
"evidence that a treatment will improve your condition or extend your life" is irrelevant if there isn't enough money in the bank. You seem committed to the delusion that government can provide everyone with all the health care they "need". I've point out, several times that all of us will face a point where we need more health care than we can afford. Does that just not register with your brain?
I think what you want to discuss is paying for healthcare.

My plan is relatively simple...
Uh huh. I don't want politicians deciding what kind of health care my family gets. And, though you're loath to admit it, that's what you're proposing.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,793
Points
280
Location
Washington
No, we do not have an infinite demand for healthcare. That's silly. Are you telling me you would go to the doctor just because it's fee? You would spend your evenings in an emergency room when you're not sick. I don't buy that.
You're so fixated on this over-utilization nonsense you're not listening. I'm not saying people will be going to the doctor just because it's "free". I'm saying that when your life is on the line, your demand for health care is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. But our capacity to pay for health care is not infinite. Someone has to make the call for whether it's worth a life's fortune to keep one person alive. If government is footing the bill, ultimately, government will be making this decision. I don't see how you can continue to deny that.
Ok, I understand
No, you're still ostriching.
Because you may demand medical procedures does not mean you're going to get them. There has to be sound evidence that a treatment will improve your condition or extend your life. For a hospital to ignore this means they will not be paid and may even be sued.
"evidence that a treatment will improve your condition or extend your life" is irrelevant if there isn't enough money in the bank. You seem committed to the delusion that government can provide everyone with all the health care they "need". I've point out, several times that all of us will face a point where we need more health care than we can afford. Does that just not register with your brain?
I think what you want to discuss is paying for healthcare.

My plan is relatively simple...
Uh huh. I don't want politicians deciding what kind of health care my family gets. And, though you're loath to admit it, that's what you're proposing.
Healthcare decisions are made by you with the help of your doctor. That's the way it's done now and the way it will be done in the future. As long as we have non-government healthcare providers it's not going to change. Having goverment pay for services does not effect that now and won't in future.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
34,273
Reaction score
3,403
Points
1,130
Healthcare decisions are made by you with the help of your doctor. That's the way it's done now and the way it will be done in the future. As long as we have non-government healthcare providers it's not going to change. Having goverment pay for services does not effect that now and won't in future.
For fuck's sake it's not about diagnosis. Can you get off that for one post??? The bottom line is, if government is footing the bill, every election health care will be a political football with each side trying to tweak it to suit their special interest groups. Every election a referendum on funding levels. Every election a risk of changes in policy that could mean life or death for family members.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,793
Points
280
Location
Washington
Healthcare decisions are made by you with the help of your doctor. That's the way it's done now and the way it will be done in the future. As long as we have non-government healthcare providers it's not going to change. Having goverment pay for services does not effect that now and won't in future.
For fuck's sake it's not about diagnosis. Can you get off that for one post??? The bottom line is, if government is footing the bill, every election health care will be a political football with each side trying to tweak it to suit their special interest groups. Every election a referendum on funding levels. Every election a risk of changes in policy that could mean life or death for family members.
Did I even mention diagnosis in my post you are replying? So what the fuck are you trying to say.
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
22,569
Reaction score
7,713
Points
360
We should have offered a public option from the start

If there was a public option, it would be a game changer.

A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Blue Cross, Aetna, etc., would have to compete on the basis of Quality. Look to lock up the top specialists and surgeons into exclusive contracts. If you don't sign for their plan, you can't have your polio treated by Jonas Salk, and you can't have your brain surgery done by Harvey Cushing.

You'd definitely have a two tiered system, where the hoi polloi would be treated by the likes of Dr. Nick Riviera and Dr. Vinnie Boombatz in the public option. Those who ponied up would see the Dr. Marcus Welby.
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,793
Points
280
Location
Washington
We should have offered a public option from the start

If there was a public option, it would be a game changer.

A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Blue Cross, Aetna, etc., would have to compete on the basis of Quality. Look to lock up the top specialists and surgeons into exclusive contracts. If you don't sign for their plan, you can't have your polio treated by Jonas Salk, and you can't have your brain surgery done by Harvey Cushing.

You'd definitely have a two tiered system, where the hoi polloi would be treated by the likes of Dr. Nick Riviera and Dr. Vinnie Boombatz in the public option. Those who ponied up would see the Dr. Marcus Welby.
No so.
Medicare and Medicare Advantage Plans run by health insurance companies for profit compete with Medicare for the same group of patients, those over 65 and eligible for Medicare. Yet Medicare Advantage Plan serve over 1/3 of those eligible for Medicare at a profit.

Government healthcare insurance plans are inflexible because they're control by law not by consumer demand. For example, Medicare has a fixed 20% copay for all non-inpatient serves but has very low deductible. Medicare inpatient has low deductible for short stays in the hospital and high deductible for long stays and their is no yearly maximum. This opens the door for private insurance to construct plans that appeal to various groups of people such as out of pocket maximum, low copays, drug coverage, well eye glasses, and dental coverage which are not offered by Medicare.

Government plans always have inflexible rules, private insurance can construct it's plans to meet customer demand and thus be competitive.
 
Last edited:

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,538
Reaction score
35,602
Points
2,190
We should have offered a public option from the start

If there was a public option, it would be a game changer.

A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Blue Cross, Aetna, etc., would have to compete on the basis of Quality. Look to lock up the top specialists and surgeons into exclusive contracts. If you don't sign for their plan, you can't have your polio treated by Jonas Salk, and you can't have your brain surgery done by Harvey Cushing.

You'd definitely have a two tiered system, where the hoi polloi would be treated by the likes of Dr. Nick Riviera and Dr. Vinnie Boombatz in the public option. Those who ponied up would see the Dr. Marcus Welby.
A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Winner!
 

Polishprince

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
22,569
Reaction score
7,713
Points
360
We should have offered a public option from the start

If there was a public option, it would be a game changer.

A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Blue Cross, Aetna, etc., would have to compete on the basis of Quality. Look to lock up the top specialists and surgeons into exclusive contracts. If you don't sign for their plan, you can't have your polio treated by Jonas Salk, and you can't have your brain surgery done by Harvey Cushing.

You'd definitely have a two tiered system, where the hoi polloi would be treated by the likes of Dr. Nick Riviera and Dr. Vinnie Boombatz in the public option. Those who ponied up would see the Dr. Marcus Welby.
A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Winner!
Do you agree with my analysis that the results of the much vaunted Public Option would be for the private competitors to look to sign Top Flight Surgeons and All Star physicians to long term exclusive contracts? If people are going to pay more, they will need a reason as to why its a good investment.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,538
Reaction score
35,602
Points
2,190
We should have offered a public option from the start

If there was a public option, it would be a game changer.

A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Blue Cross, Aetna, etc., would have to compete on the basis of Quality. Look to lock up the top specialists and surgeons into exclusive contracts. If you don't sign for their plan, you can't have your polio treated by Jonas Salk, and you can't have your brain surgery done by Harvey Cushing.

You'd definitely have a two tiered system, where the hoi polloi would be treated by the likes of Dr. Nick Riviera and Dr. Vinnie Boombatz in the public option. Those who ponied up would see the Dr. Marcus Welby.
A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Winner!
Do you agree with my analysis that the results of the much vaunted Public Option would be for the private competitors to look to sign Top Flight Surgeons and All Star physicians to long term exclusive contracts? If people are going to pay more, they will need a reason as to why its a good investment.
Somewhat

It will make private firms hungry

Makes a great option
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,333
Reaction score
4,793
Points
280
Location
Washington
We should have offered a public option from the start

If there was a public option, it would be a game changer.

A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Blue Cross, Aetna, etc., would have to compete on the basis of Quality. Look to lock up the top specialists and surgeons into exclusive contracts. If you don't sign for their plan, you can't have your polio treated by Jonas Salk, and you can't have your brain surgery done by Harvey Cushing.

You'd definitely have a two tiered system, where the hoi polloi would be treated by the likes of Dr. Nick Riviera and Dr. Vinnie Boombatz in the public option. Those who ponied up would see the Dr. Marcus Welby.
A private insurance company could never compete with the Federal Government on the basis of price. Private companies have to make money, the federal government can endure any kind of loss.

Winner!
Medicare Advantage plans where Medicare beneficiaries sign over their benefits to the insurance companies compete with regular Medicare but not on a price basis. They compete in one of two ways. Either, one by adding coverage such eye glasses, dental, gym membership, yearly maximum expenses in HMO plans which restricts usage to a local networks, often at much higher premiums than medicare. They also compete by offering zero premium plans which they shift more of cost of services to the patient in more restrictive networks. What they are doing is creating new products that are difficult to compare to regular medicare due to the way they restrict usage and allocate costs. Judging from the number of plans they must be pretty profitable.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top