Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
[quote name='Msut77']You brought up their medical history as being relevant (until it wasn't).
Whatever.
Just keep building that reputation for dishonesty.[/QUOTE]
"Whatever", indeed...
[quote name='Msut77']You can say that because you are young and relatively healthy, no doubt the second you ran into the tiniest bit of hardship (or a relative gets thrown to the wolves for failing to report a minor illness) you would change your tune.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']Like I pointed out before... you say that now but there is no doubt you would change your tune the moment something went pear shaped.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']That is how you come off. Like I said before though the second something bad happened to you or someone you care about you would change your tune.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']In contrast you know to your proposal whereas there is no doubt you would change your mind the second you so much as skin your knee.[/QUOTE]
Whatever.
Just keep building that reputation for dishonesty.[/QUOTE]
"Whatever", indeed...
[quote name='Msut77']You can say that because you are young and relatively healthy, no doubt the second you ran into the tiniest bit of hardship (or a relative gets thrown to the wolves for failing to report a minor illness) you would change your tune.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']Like I pointed out before... you say that now but there is no doubt you would change your tune the moment something went pear shaped.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']That is how you come off. Like I said before though the second something bad happened to you or someone you care about you would change your tune.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Msut77']In contrast you know to your proposal whereas there is no doubt you would change your mind the second you so much as skin your knee.[/QUOTE]
You've been making snippy comments about the medical status of myself and my family for two days. When I finally reply in regards to that, you tell me to spare you the details, that they're irrelevant.
I agree, they are irrelevant - so why have you been picking at them for two days?
I agree, they are irrelevant - so why have you been picking at them for two days?
[quote name='UncleBob']You've been making snippy comments about the medical status of myself and my family for two days. When I finally reply in regards to that, you tell me to spare you the details, that they're irrelevant.[/quote]
That is not what I said, not even close.
There is a chance (a very small one) you honestly misunderstood what I meant, namely to spare me the butthurt.
They could be relevant if it ended up having to do with the problems I brought up or they were like any of the people you call deadbeats and refer to as meth addicts and burdens.
If that was the case and you happen to feel the same way about your own flesh and blood then that is just taking it to a whole new level.
That is not what I said, not even close.
There is a chance (a very small one) you honestly misunderstood what I meant, namely to spare me the butthurt.
They could be relevant if it ended up having to do with the problems I brought up or they were like any of the people you call deadbeats and refer to as meth addicts and burdens.
If that was the case and you happen to feel the same way about your own flesh and blood then that is just taking it to a whole new level.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']It's kind of a misleading number though. I have no doubt that many people spend so much on crap like McMansions, SUVs, 50" plasmas, etc. that when a huge medical bill comes by there is little choice but to file Chapter 13.[/quote]
I cannot be the only who thinks that is an unreasonable assumption to make, can I?
Also if we read the same report it points out the majority of those people had insurance before the bankruptcy.
I cannot be the only who thinks that is an unreasonable assumption to make, can I?
Also if we read the same report it points out the majority of those people had insurance before the bankruptcy.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']I cannot be the only who thinks that is an unreasonable assumption to make, can I?
Also if we read the same report it points out the majority of those people had insurance before the bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]
I didn't get the whole report. I was reading an article on health care reform and he brings up the stats without giving the name of the study. Here are the stats from the article:
1 in 3 American under the age of 65 were uninsured for all or part of 2007-08.
More than 60% of bankruptcies in 2007 were medical in origin.
Over the last 40 years, health care costs have gone from 5% of our GDP to 18%.
Anyway you look at it, the free market failed when it came to health care.
Also if we read the same report it points out the majority of those people had insurance before the bankruptcy.[/QUOTE]
I didn't get the whole report. I was reading an article on health care reform and he brings up the stats without giving the name of the study. Here are the stats from the article:
1 in 3 American under the age of 65 were uninsured for all or part of 2007-08.
More than 60% of bankruptcies in 2007 were medical in origin.
Over the last 40 years, health care costs have gone from 5% of our GDP to 18%.
Anyway you look at it, the free market failed when it came to health care.
[quote name='depascal22']I didn't get the whole report. I was reading an article on health care reform and he brings up the stats without giving the name of the study. Here are the stats from the article:
1 in 3 American under the age of 65 were uninsured for all or part of 2007-08.
More than 60% of bankruptcies in 2007 were medical in origin.
Over the last 40 years, health care costs have gone from 5% of our GDP to 18%.
Anyway you look at it, the free market failed when it came to health care.[/QUOTE]
I think we read the same article but I saw that somewhere around 75% of those (the 50% bankrupt due to medical costs) were insured before the illness.
The probably lost insurance because its hard to keep a job or they were targeted and kicked off.
1 in 3 American under the age of 65 were uninsured for all or part of 2007-08.
More than 60% of bankruptcies in 2007 were medical in origin.
Over the last 40 years, health care costs have gone from 5% of our GDP to 18%.
Anyway you look at it, the free market failed when it came to health care.[/QUOTE]
I think we read the same article but I saw that somewhere around 75% of those (the 50% bankrupt due to medical costs) were insured before the illness.
The probably lost insurance because its hard to keep a job or they were targeted and kicked off.
Government - your answer to everything:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html
The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html
The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Government - your answer to everything:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html
The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.[/QUOTE]
That's actually the government working. Instead of just saying wait or die, they're saying take this money and get your care at the place of your choice. Sounds like a win-win for cancer patients.
Don't get me wrong. You'll probably find a couple horror stories that confirm your opinion that this is all bad but horror stories can be found for everything that anyone does on this planet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html
The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.[/QUOTE]
That's actually the government working. Instead of just saying wait or die, they're saying take this money and get your care at the place of your choice. Sounds like a win-win for cancer patients.
Don't get me wrong. You'll probably find a couple horror stories that confirm your opinion that this is all bad but horror stories can be found for everything that anyone does on this planet.
If the system saying "Yeah, we can't take care of you, here's some money go find someone who can" is the system working... wow.
I mean, it's nice and all - but I do wonder how long before the government would start pulling HMO like stuff and say "This procedure should only cost $X - anything more and you get to pay for it out of your pocket."
I mean, it's nice and all - but I do wonder how long before the government would start pulling HMO like stuff and say "This procedure should only cost $X - anything more and you get to pay for it out of your pocket."
[quote name='UncleBob']Government - your answer to everything:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html
The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.[/QUOTE]
aside from what others have already said (i.e. the taxpayers are receiving the care they need, and that's the bottom line), it's very important to consider that the U.K. spends $2,500 per person on healthcare annually. the U.S. spends nearly three times that much. let that sink in for a moment. the average briton, to remain healthier than the average american, needs only to be funded $2,500. $2,500 taxpayer dollars is keeping a briton healthier than $6,000+ is keeping an american. doesn't that say something?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1196050/Cancer-patients-paid-private-Labour-climbdown.html
The British government is now paying Cancer patients to use private medical facilities because the government-ran institutions can't handle it.[/QUOTE]
aside from what others have already said (i.e. the taxpayers are receiving the care they need, and that's the bottom line), it's very important to consider that the U.K. spends $2,500 per person on healthcare annually. the U.S. spends nearly three times that much. let that sink in for a moment. the average briton, to remain healthier than the average american, needs only to be funded $2,500. $2,500 taxpayer dollars is keeping a briton healthier than $6,000+ is keeping an american. doesn't that say something?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']So we can't pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. but we can pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. and govt. bureaucracy to administer it.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter how many people are getting paid if it's cheaper in the long run. Did you not just read what Koggit posted? Would you rather pay $6,000 for the current system or $2,500 for a socialist style system?
Now we might not ever get down to $2,500 a person because we'll have more beauracrats to pay for since we have a large population but I think we can still get it cheaper even with more people to pay.
It'll also mean more jobs. I guess if the gov't provides them, conservatives are against them.
Doesn't matter how many people are getting paid if it's cheaper in the long run. Did you not just read what Koggit posted? Would you rather pay $6,000 for the current system or $2,500 for a socialist style system?
Now we might not ever get down to $2,500 a person because we'll have more beauracrats to pay for since we have a large population but I think we can still get it cheaper even with more people to pay.
It'll also mean more jobs. I guess if the gov't provides them, conservatives are against them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8119116.stm
"Managers have warned the health service is facing a funding shortfall of up to £10bn for the three years after 2011. "
$16.5 billion. Now, the UK's population (according to Wiki) is estimated at 61,612,300. The US population is at 306,790,000 - or just under five times as much. So, based off the UK system, we'd be looking at a funding shortfall of over $80 Billion. Now, granted, we don't have to emulate their plan exactly. In fact, we'd probably screw it up and do a worse job.
"Managers have warned the health service is facing a funding shortfall of up to £10bn for the three years after 2011. "
$16.5 billion. Now, the UK's population (according to Wiki) is estimated at 61,612,300. The US population is at 306,790,000 - or just under five times as much. So, based off the UK system, we'd be looking at a funding shortfall of over $80 Billion. Now, granted, we don't have to emulate their plan exactly. In fact, we'd probably screw it up and do a worse job.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
The UK isn't the ideal model system. It's the most well-known besides Canada. But the one to look at is France.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
They spend half of what we do per person. 99% of their population is covered. And they were
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/
They spend half of what we do per person. 99% of their population is covered. And they were
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Or we can continue to look at ways for it not to work and bitch and moan in a couple years when you get your coverage yanked away because you didn't tell the HMO about an infected hangnail.
[quote name='tivo']So we can't pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. but we can pay for doctors, hospitals, medication, etc. and govt. bureaucracy to administer it.[/QUOTE]
i guess, yes, that's one way to say it. but this would be more accurate:
it's a huge burden to pay for the nearly-unregulated profit-driven American health care industry, it's about one-third that burden to pay for a heavily regulated health-driven U.K. health care system
you don't think private HMOs have ridiculous bureaucracies? they do... they also have grim reapers getting paid $1mil+ a year (after bonuses) to deny coverage to their policy-holders.
i guess, yes, that's one way to say it. but this would be more accurate:
it's a huge burden to pay for the nearly-unregulated profit-driven American health care industry, it's about one-third that burden to pay for a heavily regulated health-driven U.K. health care system
you don't think private HMOs have ridiculous bureaucracies? they do... they also have grim reapers getting paid $1mil+ a year (after bonuses) to deny coverage to their policy-holders.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']
you don't think private HMOs have ridiculous bureaucracies? they do... they also have grim reapers getting paid $1mil+ a year (after bonuses) to deny coverage to their policy-holders.[/QUOTE]
This is a huge problem. Whether you believe in free market health care or not, there's no reason that this should be happening. It's a little bit sickening actually.
you don't think private HMOs have ridiculous bureaucracies? they do... they also have grim reapers getting paid $1mil+ a year (after bonuses) to deny coverage to their policy-holders.[/QUOTE]
This is a huge problem. Whether you believe in free market health care or not, there's no reason that this should be happening. It's a little bit sickening actually.
[quote name='depascal22']Or we can continue to look at ways for it not to work and bitch and moan in a couple years when you get your coverage yanked away because you didn't tell the HMO about an infected hangnail.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather look at ways that "fixing" it won't work before we just start trying every plan under the sun and hope one of them doesn't screw things up worse.
I'd rather look at ways that "fixing" it won't work before we just start trying every plan under the sun and hope one of them doesn't screw things up worse.
I was asked before to produce one county where citizens wanted a more American-like plan.
Canada, perhaps?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews
Now, I know the source is Fox News. Don't care for them much myself. But, there's a a fact in here...
"Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment."
It seems to me, if such a case made it to the Supreme Court, there's a few Canadians who are interested in private care over the government option.
Canada, perhaps?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews
Now, I know the source is Fox News. Don't care for them much myself. But, there's a a fact in here...
"Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment."
It seems to me, if such a case made it to the Supreme Court, there's a few Canadians who are interested in private care over the government option.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
You can't ever use Quebec as an example for anything. They speak a completely different language and have tried to secede from Canada several times. It's like using the Confederate South during the Civil War as another example of our economy in the tank. (I'm only half joking with this one)
Bob,
How do you propose to fix a system that is set up for the HMOs to just rake in huge profits? How do you propose to get them to stop denying care because of small technicalities that have no correlation with the illness at hand?
You've constantly railed against state-run health care. Well, why don't you and your buddies come up with a fix for the system? Stop telling us that it won't work and give us something that will work.
Bob,
How do you propose to fix a system that is set up for the HMOs to just rake in huge profits? How do you propose to get them to stop denying care because of small technicalities that have no correlation with the illness at hand?
You've constantly railed against state-run health care. Well, why don't you and your buddies come up with a fix for the system? Stop telling us that it won't work and give us something that will work.
Last edited by a moderator:
ninju D
CAGiversary!
[quote name='depascal22']You've constantly railed against state-run health care. Well, why don't you and your buddies come up with a fix for the system? Stop telling us that it won't work and give us something that will work.[/QUOTE]
Cause that would require actual knowledge of how insurance works which I'm not sure Bob possesses. Anyway, its easier to just hate on others.
Cause that would require actual knowledge of how insurance works which I'm not sure Bob possesses. Anyway, its easier to just hate on others.
ninju's partially correct - it would require knowledge beyond what I (or, most likely, any of us) have.
Personally, I think there needs to be a lot of deregulation in the industry. I know, I know, "deregulation" is a dirty word around here - but when a woman has to pay a higher premium because her carrier cannot legally provide her coverage that doesn't include pregnancy coverage, then there's a problem. Now, I'm not calling to open the flood gates and completely kill all regulations - but the fact is, in any industry where there is high government regulation, there tends to be little competition and a high price to enter if you want to compete. We need to create more competition - something a government "option" would absolutely not do.
Personally, I think there needs to be a lot of deregulation in the industry. I know, I know, "deregulation" is a dirty word around here - but when a woman has to pay a higher premium because her carrier cannot legally provide her coverage that doesn't include pregnancy coverage, then there's a problem. Now, I'm not calling to open the flood gates and completely kill all regulations - but the fact is, in any industry where there is high government regulation, there tends to be little competition and a high price to enter if you want to compete. We need to create more competition - something a government "option" would absolutely not do.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='UncleBob']I was asked before to produce one county where citizens wanted a more American-like plan.
Canada, perhaps?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews
Now, I know the source is Fox News. Don't care for them much myself. But, there's a a fact in here...
"Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment."
It seems to me, if such a case made it to the Supreme Court, there's a few Canadians who are interested in private care over the government option.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly why FoxNews is a joke. They are trying to bash the whole Canadian health care system but meanwhile they admit themselves that
What Quebec wants to do is what Obama was proposing and what the UK and France(the number one rated healthcare system in the world) do already. Mix private and public.
Canada, perhaps?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews
Now, I know the source is Fox News. Don't care for them much myself. But, there's a a fact in here...
"Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.
But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment."
It seems to me, if such a case made it to the Supreme Court, there's a few Canadians who are interested in private care over the government option.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly why FoxNews is a joke. They are trying to bash the whole Canadian health care system but meanwhile they admit themselves that
What Quebec wants to do is what Obama was proposing and what the UK and France(the number one rated healthcare system in the world) do already. Mix private and public.
[quote name='HowStern']This is exactly why FoxNews is a joke. They are trying to bash the whole Canadian health care system [...][/QUOTE]
Like I said - not a FoxNews fan - but the article was linked to me and the fact that someone went to the Supreme Court to demand an option for private health care (and the fact that they had to do it!) stuck out to me. Since the Supreme Court case is fact, that's the only part of the article I pulled out to discuss.
Like I said - not a FoxNews fan - but the article was linked to me and the fact that someone went to the Supreme Court to demand an option for private health care (and the fact that they had to do it!) stuck out to me. Since the Supreme Court case is fact, that's the only part of the article I pulled out to discuss.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']ninju's partially correct - it would require knowledge beyond what I (or, most likely, any of us) have.
Personally, I think there needs to be a lot of deregulation in the industry. I know, I know, "deregulation" is a dirty word around here - but when a woman has to pay a higher premium because her carrier cannot legally provide her coverage that doesn't include pregnancy coverage, then there's a problem. Now, I'm not calling to open the flood gates and completely kill all regulations - but the fact is, in any industry where there is high government regulation, there tends to be little competition and a high price to enter if you want to compete. We need to create more competition - something a government "option" would absolutely not do.[/QUOTE]
All of the problems we're facing now are because there is very little regulation in place. Do you think HMOs will cover more illnesses when they have less regulation, Bob? Do you think they will continue to terminate coverage for unrelated technicalities or will they have a miraculous change of heart just because the government isn't there?
We're talking about an industry that makes more money the more they deny health care. Shouldn't the mission of healthcare be to actually provide healthcare for all that can pay it? Why do you continue to defend them and say that they should have even less supervision?
EDIT -- It's funny that you admit that you have little knowledge on the subject but you're adamant that de-regulation is the key. It's like you just spit out the Republican talking point for the issue at hand and just stick with it regardless of any evidence or common sense that might follow. You claim to be more Libertarian but you act like a Republican in sheep's clothing.
Personally, I think there needs to be a lot of deregulation in the industry. I know, I know, "deregulation" is a dirty word around here - but when a woman has to pay a higher premium because her carrier cannot legally provide her coverage that doesn't include pregnancy coverage, then there's a problem. Now, I'm not calling to open the flood gates and completely kill all regulations - but the fact is, in any industry where there is high government regulation, there tends to be little competition and a high price to enter if you want to compete. We need to create more competition - something a government "option" would absolutely not do.[/QUOTE]
All of the problems we're facing now are because there is very little regulation in place. Do you think HMOs will cover more illnesses when they have less regulation, Bob? Do you think they will continue to terminate coverage for unrelated technicalities or will they have a miraculous change of heart just because the government isn't there?
We're talking about an industry that makes more money the more they deny health care. Shouldn't the mission of healthcare be to actually provide healthcare for all that can pay it? Why do you continue to defend them and say that they should have even less supervision?
EDIT -- It's funny that you admit that you have little knowledge on the subject but you're adamant that de-regulation is the key. It's like you just spit out the Republican talking point for the issue at hand and just stick with it regardless of any evidence or common sense that might follow. You claim to be more Libertarian but you act like a Republican in sheep's clothing.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that deregulation will provide for more competition in the marketplace. More competition means better service.
>"It's funny that you admit that you have little knowledge on the subject but you're adamant that de-regulation is the key."
Do you claim to be an expert on the subject? Because you seem adamant that nationalizing the system (in some form or another) is the key...
>"It's funny that you admit that you have little knowledge on the subject but you're adamant that de-regulation is the key."
Do you claim to be an expert on the subject? Because you seem adamant that nationalizing the system (in some form or another) is the key...
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
12 years in health care in multiple states should count as a little more experience than whatever you're bringing to the table. From where I'm sitting, more regulation is the only way that everyone will be treated fairly.
Here's what I've seen. People with no health insurance wait until the last minute to get care. Most of the time, their problems have worsened to the point where they're in serious trouble. Their cancer has spread, appendix ruptured, etc.
When someone with no insurance comes in with a ruptured appendix, it affects everyone. The hospital pays the nurses and techs call pay to come in and help the poor guy. Also, a ruptured appendix means longer hospital stay than just a routine appendectomy for appendicitis. Since he doesn't repay, it gets passed on to everyone else in the form of higher costs.
The surgeon and anesthesiologist don't get paid either since most hospitals don't pay their doctors a salary. Now the surgery group and anesthesiology group pass those costs on to everyone else in the form of higher cost.
People that do have insurance now have HMOs that try to terminate services because the HMOs are looking to cut costs. Even when they negotiate prices, they're still looking for ways to increase profit which inevitably leads to denied claims. It's why you see the initial bill is usually never paid. HMOs usually negotiate to somewhere around 60% of the first bill. This leads to hospitals charging $10 for a single aspirin in the hopes that someone will pay it.
Don't forget when doctors and HMOs don't agree on fees. This leads to a doctor not accepting certain kinds of insurance or going cash only. This actually leads to less choice if you have a certain kind of insurance or not enough money.
And don't get me started on tort reform. Everyone that has a bad result feels almost obligated to sue these days. This includes the guy that had a ruptured appendix and developed sepsis a few days later. He blames the surgeon instead of himself for not going into the doctor a week earlier. The shame is that juries almost always side with the patient because he had such a horrible experience. It can't possibly be his fault can it? The average joe thinks that any doctor should be able to cure everyone regardless of the events leading up to a doctor's first exam. And it's really hard to blame someone that has no insurance for trying to suck it up and wait it out instead of rushing to the ER with a "tummy ache".
Deregulation would make all these problems worse.
Here's what I've seen. People with no health insurance wait until the last minute to get care. Most of the time, their problems have worsened to the point where they're in serious trouble. Their cancer has spread, appendix ruptured, etc.
When someone with no insurance comes in with a ruptured appendix, it affects everyone. The hospital pays the nurses and techs call pay to come in and help the poor guy. Also, a ruptured appendix means longer hospital stay than just a routine appendectomy for appendicitis. Since he doesn't repay, it gets passed on to everyone else in the form of higher costs.
The surgeon and anesthesiologist don't get paid either since most hospitals don't pay their doctors a salary. Now the surgery group and anesthesiology group pass those costs on to everyone else in the form of higher cost.
People that do have insurance now have HMOs that try to terminate services because the HMOs are looking to cut costs. Even when they negotiate prices, they're still looking for ways to increase profit which inevitably leads to denied claims. It's why you see the initial bill is usually never paid. HMOs usually negotiate to somewhere around 60% of the first bill. This leads to hospitals charging $10 for a single aspirin in the hopes that someone will pay it.
Don't forget when doctors and HMOs don't agree on fees. This leads to a doctor not accepting certain kinds of insurance or going cash only. This actually leads to less choice if you have a certain kind of insurance or not enough money.
And don't get me started on tort reform. Everyone that has a bad result feels almost obligated to sue these days. This includes the guy that had a ruptured appendix and developed sepsis a few days later. He blames the surgeon instead of himself for not going into the doctor a week earlier. The shame is that juries almost always side with the patient because he had such a horrible experience. It can't possibly be his fault can it? The average joe thinks that any doctor should be able to cure everyone regardless of the events leading up to a doctor's first exam. And it's really hard to blame someone that has no insurance for trying to suck it up and wait it out instead of rushing to the ER with a "tummy ache".
Deregulation would make all these problems worse.
I agree with you 100% on the subject of tort reform.
I do acknowledge your superior expertise on the subject, running under the assumption your claim is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise).
Question - what's the difference between nine people not paying and the 10th getting stuck with the bill in the current "free market" system and nine non-tax payers not paying and the 10th tax payer getting stuck with the bill in a "government-controlled" system?
>"Don't forget when doctors and HMOs don't agree on fees. "
How long do you think it would take before a government option would start dictating fees that they're willing to pay and how much they're willing to pay? Why would this method be better than the current HMO method?
I do acknowledge your superior expertise on the subject, running under the assumption your claim is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise).
Question - what's the difference between nine people not paying and the 10th getting stuck with the bill in the current "free market" system and nine non-tax payers not paying and the 10th tax payer getting stuck with the bill in a "government-controlled" system?
>"Don't forget when doctors and HMOs don't agree on fees. "
How long do you think it would take before a government option would start dictating fees that they're willing to pay and how much they're willing to pay? Why would this method be better than the current HMO method?
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you claim to be an expert on the subject?[/quote]
Depends on what you consider an expert. Do you mean someone who happens to be very knowledgeable or someone who gets paid to talk on fox?
Depends on what you mean by "the" system, the healthcare system or the insurance system. Nationalizing either isn't technically necessary or even on the table.
Depends on what you consider an expert. Do you mean someone who happens to be very knowledgeable or someone who gets paid to talk on fox?
Depends on what you mean by "the" system, the healthcare system or the insurance system. Nationalizing either isn't technically necessary or even on the table.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
The government already does that with Medicare.
Where are you getting your figures from? The question just isn't valid because you'll never have a situation where there are nine non-tax paying individuals for every one that does. What's the point of even answering that question?
You're basically saying that 90% of America don't pay taxes. You've been listening to bmull too much if you believe that crap.
Where are you getting your figures from? The question just isn't valid because you'll never have a situation where there are nine non-tax paying individuals for every one that does. What's the point of even answering that question?
You're basically saying that 90% of America don't pay taxes. You've been listening to bmull too much if you believe that crap.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Deregulation means that ER visits are cheaper than going to the doctor once a year, didn't you know that?
[quote name='depascal22']The government already does that with Medicare.
Where are you getting your figures from? The question just isn't valid because you'll never have a situation where there are nine non-tax paying individuals for every one that does. What's the point of even answering that question?
You're basically saying that 90% of America don't pay taxes. You've been listening to bmull too much if you believe that crap.[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean those numbers to be taken literally - the point of the question is, with the current system, we're spreading the costs from those who don't pay to those who do pay. With the "new" system, we'd be doing the same thing. What's the difference?
And Medicare is hardly a worthy example of a good system.
Where are you getting your figures from? The question just isn't valid because you'll never have a situation where there are nine non-tax paying individuals for every one that does. What's the point of even answering that question?
You're basically saying that 90% of America don't pay taxes. You've been listening to bmull too much if you believe that crap.[/QUOTE]
I didn't mean those numbers to be taken literally - the point of the question is, with the current system, we're spreading the costs from those who don't pay to those who do pay. With the "new" system, we'd be doing the same thing. What's the difference?
And Medicare is hardly a worthy example of a good system.
[quote name='Msut77']Depends on what you mean by "the" system, the healthcare system or the insurance system. Nationalizing either isn't technically necessary or even on the table.[/QUOTE]
FNC has been horrible about this -- they've spent weeks attacking universal healthcare and saying that's what Obama/Dems want, implying (sometimes directly stating) that that's what the dem healthcare reform is... shit like that should be illegal.
They're going for ratings, which means being controversial, I understand that, but a lot of people do watch, and their opinions are being shaped by what a news channel perpetuates as truth, it should be illegal to outright lie about what something is like that. I don't expect them to call a spade a spade but they should at least call it some sort of gardening tool, they shouldn't be allowed to claim it's a sexual device used to rape babies. Should I be allowed to start a news channel and, amongst credible news, make falsified reports about Rupert Murdoch? Maybe I should... follow credible stories about Iran and the economy with a story about how Murdoch's a gay atheistic communist trying to destroy America because his middle eastern mistress asked him to... or would that be slander? It's okay to lie to voters about congress is doing, but not okay to lie to them about what a person is doing?
FNC has been horrible about this -- they've spent weeks attacking universal healthcare and saying that's what Obama/Dems want, implying (sometimes directly stating) that that's what the dem healthcare reform is... shit like that should be illegal.
They're going for ratings, which means being controversial, I understand that, but a lot of people do watch, and their opinions are being shaped by what a news channel perpetuates as truth, it should be illegal to outright lie about what something is like that. I don't expect them to call a spade a spade but they should at least call it some sort of gardening tool, they shouldn't be allowed to claim it's a sexual device used to rape babies. Should I be allowed to start a news channel and, amongst credible news, make falsified reports about Rupert Murdoch? Maybe I should... follow credible stories about Iran and the economy with a story about how Murdoch's a gay atheistic communist trying to destroy America because his middle eastern mistress asked him to... or would that be slander? It's okay to lie to voters about congress is doing, but not okay to lie to them about what a person is doing?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Do you honestly feel that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficiary to both quality and costs?[/QUOTE]
Did you not read what I just wrote earlier? Prices will not go down but up with less regulation.
Less people will be covered because more insurance companies will deny claims and terminate coverage for people that will cost too much to care for.
That brain tumor still has to come out, right? Ooops. You didn't say that you had an infected toenail three years ago. Coverage terminated. Now, no one will touch that person with a ten foot pole because of a "pre-existing condition".
If the tumor is operable, a surgeon has to provide care and the hospital can't deny care either. Guess who pays for all that when the person just declares bankruptcy instead of paying the $50,000 bill? Guess who that gets passed on to.
This is what happens with the current system. Now with deregulation, HMOs can use even flimsier reasons for denying claims and terminating coverage.
Profits go up as well as cost. Everyone else in the healthcare system uses profits to invest back in the system to provide more efficient care. Hospitals use profits to buy advanced equipment that will attract more surgeons and thus more business. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies use profits to fund medical advances that will benefit mankind. HMOs? Profits go to the bean counters that analyze new ways to deny claims based on bogus numbers.
EDIT -- I've given you concrete examples of how health care will get worse with deregulation but you haven't given us one example of how health care will get better. Please stop arguing about this until you get something concrete to back yourself up with.
EDIT #2 -- What do you mean by more choice? You get sick or in an accident, does the driver ask you which hospital is your choice? Do you actually do in depth research before choosing a doctor or do you just pick a random one on the list of docs that are provided by your HMO?
Another thing, most people that have insurance get it provided by their employer. Do employees get a choice or do they just take it because it's provided as a benefit? But then, some doctors don't take your insurance. Would you go to the best doctor on the planet and just pay cash because he couldn't negotiate a contract with your HMO?
Did you not read what I just wrote earlier? Prices will not go down but up with less regulation.
Less people will be covered because more insurance companies will deny claims and terminate coverage for people that will cost too much to care for.
That brain tumor still has to come out, right? Ooops. You didn't say that you had an infected toenail three years ago. Coverage terminated. Now, no one will touch that person with a ten foot pole because of a "pre-existing condition".
If the tumor is operable, a surgeon has to provide care and the hospital can't deny care either. Guess who pays for all that when the person just declares bankruptcy instead of paying the $50,000 bill? Guess who that gets passed on to.
This is what happens with the current system. Now with deregulation, HMOs can use even flimsier reasons for denying claims and terminating coverage.
Profits go up as well as cost. Everyone else in the healthcare system uses profits to invest back in the system to provide more efficient care. Hospitals use profits to buy advanced equipment that will attract more surgeons and thus more business. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies use profits to fund medical advances that will benefit mankind. HMOs? Profits go to the bean counters that analyze new ways to deny claims based on bogus numbers.
EDIT -- I've given you concrete examples of how health care will get worse with deregulation but you haven't given us one example of how health care will get better. Please stop arguing about this until you get something concrete to back yourself up with.
EDIT #2 -- What do you mean by more choice? You get sick or in an accident, does the driver ask you which hospital is your choice? Do you actually do in depth research before choosing a doctor or do you just pick a random one on the list of docs that are provided by your HMO?
Another thing, most people that have insurance get it provided by their employer. Do employees get a choice or do they just take it because it's provided as a benefit? But then, some doctors don't take your insurance. Would you go to the best doctor on the planet and just pay cash because he couldn't negotiate a contract with your HMO?
Are you interested in answering the question - do you honestly believe that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficial to both the quality and the costs? Deregulation aside for the moment. If you could create a situation that would put more choices into the market - both for insurance and care - do you think that would increase or decrease costs?
[quote name='UncleBob']Medicare is hardly a worthy example of a good system.[/QUOTE]
For what it is, why yes. Yes it is.
I feel it would be putting a band aid on a torn limb.
Paul Krugman recently wrote about how almost 50 years ago Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care" basically disproved the free market answer to healthcare.
He shouldn't care about answering your "questions".
For what it is, why yes. Yes it is.
I feel it would be putting a band aid on a torn limb.
Paul Krugman recently wrote about how almost 50 years ago Kenneth Arrow's "Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care" basically disproved the free market answer to healthcare.
He shouldn't care about answering your "questions".
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you interested in answering the question - do you honestly believe that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficial to both the quality and the costs? Deregulation aside for the moment. If you could create a situation that would put more choices into the market - both for insurance and care - do you think that would increase or decrease costs?[/QUOTE]
i cannot believe you're still on this
oh yes, the magical deregulation fairy will delivery new competitors and the free market will give them the gift of compassion and we'll all revel in the wonderful american capitalist patient-driven (contradiction, i know) healthcare that no other country was smart enough to think of...
this is not an argument against you. you do not have to defend what you, surely, must know is a terrible idea. it's okay to say "i was wrong". it doesn't hurt. promise.
i cannot believe you're still on this
oh yes, the magical deregulation fairy will delivery new competitors and the free market will give them the gift of compassion and we'll all revel in the wonderful american capitalist patient-driven (contradiction, i know) healthcare that no other country was smart enough to think of...
this is not an argument against you. you do not have to defend what you, surely, must know is a terrible idea. it's okay to say "i was wrong". it doesn't hurt. promise.
[quote name='Koggit']i cannot believe you're still on this
oh yes, the magical deregulation fairy will delivery new competitors and the free market will give them the gift of compassion and we'll all revel in the wonderful american capitalist patient-driven (contradiction, i know) healthcare that no other country was smart enough to think of...[/QUOTE]
...
[quote name='UncleBob']Deregulation aside for the moment.[/quote]
oh yes, the magical deregulation fairy will delivery new competitors and the free market will give them the gift of compassion and we'll all revel in the wonderful american capitalist patient-driven (contradiction, i know) healthcare that no other country was smart enough to think of...[/QUOTE]
...
[quote name='UncleBob']Deregulation aside for the moment.[/quote]
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you interested in answering the question - do you honestly believe that creating more choices in the market would not be beneficial to both the quality and the costs? Deregulation aside for the moment. If you could create a situation that would put more choices into the market - both for insurance and care - do you think that would increase or decrease costs?[/QUOTE]
I'm saying your question isn't valid. You're putting a hypothetical out there that has zero chance of ever becoming truth. How do you get more choices?
More doctors? Doctors are leaving practice in higher numbers because of sky high malpractice costs and super low reimbursement from HMOs.
New hospitals? New hospitals are being built but by existing health care networks. It means you know have a St. Francis Beech Grove to go with your St. Francis Indianapolis. They're both the same hospital but now they have more bed space, ORs, etc. Still the same price.
You'll never find an independent company that will put the money up for a new hospital. It's the worst investment you could ever make unless you're already in the business and know how to manage a health care network.
More insurance companies? A new insurance company will never improve on the admittedly low standard of care already given by the current HMOs. It would take decades for a new HMO to get up to the level of a current HMO and that's with some of the luckiest breaks you'll ever get. Not only do you have to negotiate deals with doctors of all kinds but you have to go with the hospitals. You think health care networks get into negotiations with small insurance companies? No. Because it's not worth their time and effort. Not enough patients will come through the door because of it.
And that's if you have customers. How many employers will sign on with you when you tell them you have zero contracts in place with existing providers or hospitals?
Now, here's an example of your world with more choice. I go online and shop for health insurance rates. I find one with super cheap rates and sign up for six months to try it out. When I get the information, I find out that there's only one doctor with 50 miles that accepts my insurance and he's got a seven month waiting list because he's swamped with other patients from my HMO. Oh, and he just finished his residency last year but didn't get accepted for a fellowship. Good luck.
EDIT -- Creating more choice would be a government initiative and therefore involve more regulation. The government could create government run HMOs that provide care and force doctors and hospitals to accept it. The government could build more hospitals and fill them with government trained docs that will be forced to work for the government for x amount of years. All of this amounts to more choice but ,gasp, way more regulation and way more beauracracy than you're willing to accept.
I'm saying your question isn't valid. You're putting a hypothetical out there that has zero chance of ever becoming truth. How do you get more choices?
More doctors? Doctors are leaving practice in higher numbers because of sky high malpractice costs and super low reimbursement from HMOs.
New hospitals? New hospitals are being built but by existing health care networks. It means you know have a St. Francis Beech Grove to go with your St. Francis Indianapolis. They're both the same hospital but now they have more bed space, ORs, etc. Still the same price.
You'll never find an independent company that will put the money up for a new hospital. It's the worst investment you could ever make unless you're already in the business and know how to manage a health care network.
More insurance companies? A new insurance company will never improve on the admittedly low standard of care already given by the current HMOs. It would take decades for a new HMO to get up to the level of a current HMO and that's with some of the luckiest breaks you'll ever get. Not only do you have to negotiate deals with doctors of all kinds but you have to go with the hospitals. You think health care networks get into negotiations with small insurance companies? No. Because it's not worth their time and effort. Not enough patients will come through the door because of it.
And that's if you have customers. How many employers will sign on with you when you tell them you have zero contracts in place with existing providers or hospitals?
Now, here's an example of your world with more choice. I go online and shop for health insurance rates. I find one with super cheap rates and sign up for six months to try it out. When I get the information, I find out that there's only one doctor with 50 miles that accepts my insurance and he's got a seven month waiting list because he's swamped with other patients from my HMO. Oh, and he just finished his residency last year but didn't get accepted for a fellowship. Good luck.
EDIT -- Creating more choice would be a government initiative and therefore involve more regulation. The government could create government run HMOs that provide care and force doctors and hospitals to accept it. The government could build more hospitals and fill them with government trained docs that will be forced to work for the government for x amount of years. All of this amounts to more choice but ,gasp, way more regulation and way more beauracracy than you're willing to accept.
So.. more choice isn't good. Interesting - because that's not what Obama says. Obama says "his" plan will offer a choice to people and they'll get better care and cheaper prices.
As for regulation - let's look at what our government is doing to see how they feel about following their own rules. How well does the Federal Reserve follow the government's rules for banking and finical institutions? How well will the Federal option for health care follow the rules?
As for regulation - let's look at what our government is doing to see how they feel about following their own rules. How well does the Federal Reserve follow the government's rules for banking and finical institutions? How well will the Federal option for health care follow the rules?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
No. Your vision of more choice isn't good. I had to kind of fudge the details since you won't provide any for your plan.
Why don't you stop being a hater and pick a plan that will work. I'm done with this thread until someone comes up with a plan that works better than our current system or France's current system. I'd personally love something close to the French system but I've heard nothing but why it won't work. Come up with concrete examples or statistics for why your system of more choice and less regulation will work better. And please no more cooked up Fox News' crap.
No more hypothetical crap that leads nowhere but circles.
Why don't you stop being a hater and pick a plan that will work. I'm done with this thread until someone comes up with a plan that works better than our current system or France's current system. I'd personally love something close to the French system but I've heard nothing but why it won't work. Come up with concrete examples or statistics for why your system of more choice and less regulation will work better. And please no more cooked up Fox News' crap.
No more hypothetical crap that leads nowhere but circles.
The only thing I used the Fox News story for is a reference to the Canadian Supreme Court decision that allowed citizens the right to choose private care. Since that is a fact - not opinion - I don't think you can honestly consider it "crap". Well, I guess you can consider facts "crap"...
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']The only thing I used the Fox News story for is a reference to the Canadian Supreme Court decision that allowed citizens the right to choose private care. Since that is a fact - not opinion - I don't think you can honestly consider it "crap". Well, I guess you can consider facts "crap"...[/QUOTE]
I consider Fox News crap because they only present the facts that bolster their position. They're a news service not a conservative think tank. Why the hell does FNC even have a position anyway?
I consider Fox News crap because they only present the facts that bolster their position. They're a news service not a conservative think tank. Why the hell does FNC even have a position anyway?
bread's done