The myths of high cost healthcare

[Underhill]

Nope sorry, everyone will need health care at some point.

Please don't equivocate health care and health insurance. They're not the same thing. So much of this debate is trying to get past this fixation on insurance as the only way to take care of our health, and that's just nonsense. The insurance industry certainly wants to sell that view, but it's not true. Unless, of course, it's forced on us via government.

Of course regulations can control cost. Just look at Canada's drug prices if you don't believe me.

C'mon. Don't evade the issue. WHO will control prices? ie who will control how much vendors (people) can charge and how much consumers (people) will pay? Any chance it will be the same people who control regulation currently (industry lobbyists)?

capitalism keeps prices so low that Americans are richest people in human history. Do you wonder why prices are not low in health care??
Perhaps because there is no capitalism there.

Of course there is, that is why the prices are so high. Scarcity.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

WHO will control prices?

ideally capitalism will control prices as it does in all industries. Why do you think Americans can afford enough to be the richest in all of human history!!

All thats needed is for liberals to make capitalism legal in the health care industry!!

 

[Underhill]

WHO will control prices?

ideally capitalism will control prices as it does in all industries. Why do you think Americans can afford enough to be the richest in all of human history!!

All thats needed is for liberals to make capitalism legal in the health care industry!!

For a smart guy you get an awful lot of facts wrong.

We may have the highest GDP in the world, but we are 7th per capita. And even those numbers are vastly skewed by the extreme wealth disparities. If you use median income, we would be hard pressed to make the top 25.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

WHO will control prices?

ideally capitalism will control prices as it does in all industries. Why do you think Americans can afford enough to be the richest in all of human history!!

All thats needed is for liberals to make capitalism legal in the health care industry!!

For a smart guy you get an awful lot of facts wrong.

We may have the highest GDP in the world, but we are 7th per capita. And even those numbers are vastly skewed by the extreme wealth disparities. If you use median income, we would be hard pressed to make the top 25.

well, among major industrial countries, not tax haven's, that hardly have as their slogan, "give us the world's tired weak and poor!!"

anyway, you're changing the subject to numbers debate because you lack the IQ for the subject

 

[Underhill]

ideally capitalism will control prices as it does in all industries. Why do you think Americans can afford enough to be the richest in all of human history!!

All thats needed is for liberals to make capitalism legal in the health care industry!!

For a smart guy you get an awful lot of facts wrong.

We may have the highest GDP in the world, but we are 7th per capita. And even those numbers are vastly skewed by the extreme wealth disparities. If you use median income, we would be hard pressed to make the top 25.

well, among major industrial countries, not tax haven's, that hardly have as their slogan, "give us the world's tired weak and poor!!"

anyway, you're changing the subject to numbers debate because you lack the IQ for the subject

Clearly. Obviously between you and I, I am the idiot. Yep.

You wouldn't happen to be a guy called biblethumper by another name would you? Because he was just as brilliant as you on another forum I frequented. Same mannerisms, same, umm, wit.

 

[Antares]

Price controls will be instituted with Single Payor.

 

[dblack]

Please don't equivocate health care and health insurance. They're not the same thing. So much of this debate is trying to get past this fixation on insurance as the only way to take care of our health, and that's just nonsense. The insurance industry certainly wants to sell that view, but it's not true. Unless, of course, it's forced on us via government.

Right, except when I ask for alternatives all you offer is "opening up the markets".

So again I ask, if you reject insurance, and reject government plans, how do you expect to get your health care? Pay as you go? Because that will work fine right up until something serious happens, then you are screwed.

If you're asking me personally, my gut reaction is - none of your business! And that actually speaks to the point I'm making, as well as being snarky. Seriously though, the entire argument I'm making is that no one, whether they claim to represent the majority or not, should be allowed to dictate how we deal with something so personal. I'm arguing for keeping alternatives - all of them - legal. Instead, we're committing everyone to the same sinking ship.

If your asking what kinds of reforms I'd make if it were up to me, I'd first undo all the incentives that have established employer-provided, group insurance as the norm. Those of us who have insurance, in general, are over-insured.

Every dollar we spend out of pocket represents not only cost savings, in avoiding the overhead of the insurance middleman, but also a restoration of sanity to the health care market. People who are paying for something themselves care how much they're spending - yes, even for health care. People who aren't, don't. That's the situation we're in now. As editec pointed out, no one cares what their health care costs because very few of us are paying for it.

We should all be paying for as much of our health care as we can afford out of pocket, and relying on insurance as it was originally intended - as a backstop against unforeseen catastrophe. As a means of financing routine health care expense, insurance is not only dumb from a personal finances perspective, but it's poisonous to the marketplace. With no customer motivation to save money, prices will go through the roof in any market.

Now, I'm aware that even with sane reforms to ill-conceived incentives and bad regulation, it will take time for the market to recover to a reasonable level. In the meantime, we could and should beef up the safety nets, within reason. Government, in part, got us into this mess and it seems right that they should help out the people getting screwed the worst until the damage can be repaired. Unfortunately, pumping too much money into that would have the same ill-effects of being over-insured.

Anyway, I suspect none of that is inspirational to you because you seem to want solutions for how government can be make sure that everyone has all the health care they need. But I simply don't think the government should be doing that.

C'mon. Don't evade the issue. WHO will control prices? ie who will control how much vendors (people) can charge and how much consumers (people) will pay? Any chance it will be the same people who control regulation currently (industry lobbyists)?

Who is evading anything?

The reality is that cost can be controlled by anyone we like. Industry lobbyist will have say, no doubt. But so will other interest groups like AARP, the CFA and the AMAC who will fight for consumer protections. If you think AARP doesn't have some pull, you are dreaming. It's one of the reason nobody dares touch their current health care and social security.

EXACTLY! This is precisely what I wanted to get into. Did you read up on corporatism any yet? Because what you describe above is the essence of it. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, corporatism isn't about government policy favoring business. The corporation referred to in corporatism isn't specifically a business - though it can be. It's referring to any organized power bloc with an interest in controlling policy. All of the groups you describe above are 'corporations' in the context of corporatism.

Corporatism is a fundamentally different form of government (as opposed to liberal democracy) that swaps out individual rights and rule of law for group rights and rule by decree. It sets up government as power broker, horse-trading with all the 'vested interests' to share power and control. Instead of law based on the equal protection of universal rights, we get government that dispenses privilege and penalty to corporate (in the corporatism sense) groups. I don't think most liberals have stopped to consider how much these kinds of policies conflict with their nominally virtuous convictions.

 

[Underhill]

If you're asking me personally, my gut reaction is - none of your business! And that actually speaks to the point I'm making, as well as being snarky. Seriously though, the entire argument I'm making is that no one, whether they claim to represent the majority or not, should be allowed to dictate how we deal with something so personal. I'm arguing for keeping alternatives - all of them - legal. Instead, we're committing everyone to the same sinking ship.

If your asking what kinds of reforms I'd make if it were up to me, I'd first undo all the incentives that have established employer-provided, group insurance as the norm. Those of us who have insurance, in general, are over-insured.

Every dollar we spend out of pocket represents not only cost savings, in avoiding the overhead of the insurance middleman, but also a restoration of sanity to the health care market. People who are paying for something themselves care how much they're spending - yes, even for health care. People who aren't, don't. That's the situation we're in now. As editec pointed out, no one cares what their health care costs because very few of us are paying for it.

We should all be paying for as much of our health care as we can afford out of pocket, and relying on insurance as it was originally intended - as a backstop against unforeseen catastrophe. As a means of financing routine health care expense, insurance is not only dumb from a personal finances perspective, but it's poisonous to the marketplace. With no customer motivation to save money, prices will go through the roof in any market.

Now, I'm aware that even with sane reforms to ill-conceived incentives and bad regulation, it will take time for the market to recover to a reasonable level. In the meantime, we could and should beef up the safety nets, within reason. Government, in part, got us into this mess and it seems right that they should help out the people getting screwed the worst until the damage can be repaired. Unfortunately, pumping too much money into that would have the same ill-effects of being over-insured.

Anyway, I suspect none of that is inspirational to you because you seem to want solutions for how government can be make sure that everyone has all the health care they need. But I simply don't think the government should be doing that.

First, thank you for the well stated answer. I have toyed with the basic concept of insurance only for big ticket stuff and out of pocket for everything else. If you had asked me 10 years ago, my response would probably have been similar.

But the more I grew to understand medicine the more I realized that it doesn't work. Here's why.

So far as I'm concerned there are two goals of primary importance. First, is of course the health and well being of people. Second being keeping cost down.

In cases where people had no coverage for the little things, what all to often happens is they do not go to the doctor except when they feel they really need it. At which point it is often too late. So something that may have needed an antibiotic in pill form now needs an IV and a hospital stay.

This is why most insurers pay 100% for free checkups and common testing. It actually saves them money.

By saying insurance, be it government or private, will only pick up the tab if things get prohibitively expensive, it wouldn't necessarily save us money. More importantly, it would have a negative impact on peoples health.

There may be room for some middle ground. But it's a difficult row to hoe, no doubt about it.

EXACTLY! This is precisely what I wanted to get into. Did you read up on corporatism any yet? Because what you describe above is the essence of it. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, corporatism isn't about government policy favoring business. The corporation referred to in corporatism isn't specifically a business - though it can be. It's referring to any organized power bloc with an interest in controlling policy. All of the groups you describe above are 'corporations' in the context of corporatism.

Corporatism is a fundamentally different form of government (as opposed to liberal democracy) that swaps out individual rights and rule of law for group rights and rule by decree. It sets up government as power broker, horse-trading with all the 'vested interests' to share power and control. Instead of law based on the equal protection of universal rights, we get government that dispenses privilege and penalty to corporate (in the corporatism sense) groups. I don't think most liberals have stopped to consider how much these kinds of policies conflict with their nominally virtuous convictions.

To paraphrase one of our recent VP's, "We work with the government we have, not the government we want to have...".

I'm not arguing with you. While I know it's sacrilege to say, the founding fathers made some mistakes. Every position in Washington should be term limited. Every dollar they take in should be public knowledge. And more besides...

But as I don't see it changing anytime soon, what is the answer?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Every position in Washington should be term limited.

Dear, every position could still be filled by liberals and communists.

The correct change is obviously the one China just made, i.e, the change to capitalism.

As a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism-right?

 

[Underhill]

Every position in Washington should be term limited.

Dear, every position could still be filled by liberals and communists.

The correct change is obviously the one China just made, i.e, the change to capitalism.

As a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism-right?

Admittedly I am flummoxed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Every position in Washington should be term limited.

Dear, every position could still be filled by liberals and communists.

The correct change is obviously the one China just made, i.e, the change to capitalism.

As a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism-right?

Admittedly I am flummoxed.

why not ask questions until you get the basics down? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?

 

[Underhill]

Dear, every position could still be filled by liberals and communists.

The correct change is obviously the one China just made, i.e, the change to capitalism.

As a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism-right?

Admittedly I am flummoxed.

why not ask questions until you get the basics down? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Your clearly sagacious nature is beyond the limits of my obviously intrepid intelligence. *backs slowly away....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Admittedly I am flummoxed.

why not ask questions until you get the basics down? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Your clearly sagacious nature is beyond the limits of my obviously intrepid intelligence. *backs slowly away....

Dear, backing away all you life is how you got to be a liberal!!! Sorry!!
You must lean in as the lady from Facebook proclaims!!

 

[lynn63]

If Obamacare is intended towards a single payer system, it sure is doing a lousy job of it. The ACA exchange should have been made more attractive in lowering costs. It should have been set up as a one payer system instead of allowing the big healthcare insurance companies to profit from it.

It should have allowed small and large businesses to join the exchange with tax incentives and be affordable to their employees in lower premium share and lower out of pocket costs. The government is big enough to afford this transition and it would have directly affected all the healthcare insurances in either lowering their costs or go out of business.

The ACA did accomplish by setting premium costs with all high deductibles for each of the income levels are all much higher then employer coverage. This was the biggest incentive for health insurance the okay to raise their rates since 2009 on false premises.

In reality, how is the ACA affecting health insurance companies to justify raising costs?

1. Coverage for young adults under 26 on their parents policy doesn't increase cost since this pool is healthy. It does provide added profit if you are a single parent who now pay family coverage instead of single coverage.
2. The insurance companies now must pay for preventive care with no co-pays or out of pocket. This does not add cost since many healthy people usually won't go to the doctor unless a health issue creates it.
3. They now have to cover pre-existing conditions will increase cost but so has the premiums on this group with much higher deductibles. Higher deductibles usually means that the insurance company is only actually paying for are doctor visits while all lab work, x-rays, diagnostic testing will all be applied to their deductible.

Most people even individuals in the high risk pool seldom meet their deductible each year in order for the insurance company to start paying their 80% or what their contract dictates. This is the biggest healthcare scam in human history and the saddest part is most people don't even realize it.

They don't take the time to review their medical claims and look at actual charges verses reimbursement nor take into account what is coming out of their paychecks in premium share and what they actually spent in out of pocket expenses verses what their insurance paid for the year.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is the biggest healthcare scam in human history and the saddest part is most people don't even realize it.

well it cant be much worse than the current socialist system, and perhaps its sudden failure will push us toward a capitalist system.
By 2016 or so the results should be in for all to see-right?

 

[Dragonlady]

well it cant be much worse than the current socialist system, and perhaps its sudden failure will push us toward a capitalist system.
By 2016 or so the results should be in for all to see-right?

Edward, it was the FAILURE of the current capitalist system that pushed the government to introduce restrictions on the insurance company.

Capitalism failure US healthcare leading to Medicare. The continuing failure of the capitalist system has lead to this point. No other first world country is in danger of being bankrupted by it's healthcare system except the US. No other first world country has ever had to completely reform it's health care system.

But then, you're the only country in the world where private, capitalist insurance companies have been running the show.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Edward, it was the FAILURE of the current capitalist system .

too stupid as always. The six major government health care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Department of Defense TRICARE and TRICARE for Life programs (DOD TRICARE), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) program, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) program are not capitalist!!!!Can you grasp that????

Plus, the government has made competition illegal between health care insurance companies!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow,so very very slow

 

[dblack]

But then, you're the only country in the world where private, capitalist insurance companies have been running the show.

Once the mandate goes into effect, they'll certainly be running the show. With ACA, the insurance industry has made us an "offer" we can't refuse.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But then, you're the only country in the world where private, capitalist insurance companies have been running the show.

Once the mandate goes into effect, they'll certainly be running the show. With ACA, the insurance industry has made us an "offer" we can't refuse.

Dragon lady has no idea whatsoever that liberals made competition among health insurance companies illegal in 1946 or that China has been growing 7-10% a year for 30 years under capitalsim.

She is a typical liberals. Everything she feels is based on pure ignorance

 

[lynn63]

Edward, it was the FAILURE of the current capitalist system .

too stupid as always. The six major government health care programs—Medicare, Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Department of Defense TRICARE and TRICARE for Life programs (DOD TRICARE), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) program, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) program are not capitalist!!!!Can you grasp that????

Plus, the government has made competition illegal between health care insurance companies!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow,so very very slow

The six major government health programs are paid by the tax payers and up until the recession they had surpluses except for Medicaid. You might want consider surpluses as government profit since they used those surpluses to build bigger government with out any intention of paying back the public for those surpluses.

In order to pay back those surpluses the money must come from us in increasing taxes. There is no competition between healthcare companies because they all raise their rates at the same time. There is not a big cost difference from one company to another.