Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
JolietJake
Banned
If people are so worried about a lack of doctors, why not create incentives for people to enter medicine?
Of course one reason there is a lack of primary care physicians is that many doctors choose to specialize these days.
Of course one reason there is a lack of primary care physicians is that many doctors choose to specialize these days.
[quote name='JolietJake']If people are so worried about a lack of doctors, why not create incentives for people to enter medicine?
Of course one reason there is a lack of primary care physicians is that many doctors choose to specialize these days.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of lack of Doctors, rumblings from the motherland about their lack of doctors and the fact that they have to ship in 1/3rd of them...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-coming-practice-Britain-say-GP-leaders.html
Of course one reason there is a lack of primary care physicians is that many doctors choose to specialize these days.[/QUOTE]
Speaking of lack of Doctors, rumblings from the motherland about their lack of doctors and the fact that they have to ship in 1/3rd of them...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-coming-practice-Britain-say-GP-leaders.html
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']People can live the way they want to.
But if they want to be worthless, unhealthy fat slobs, then they should pay higher premiums--not have everyone pay higher premiums to subsidize their more frequent need of health care. See the stats I posted earlier on the thread on how much an obese person accrues in a year in health care costs on average vs. people at healthy weight.
Just like people with perfect driving records get discounts, so should those of us who keep our selves in great shape and don't need to use the health care system very often.
The only ways to save money on health care spending are:
1. Get the populace, on average, healthier and needing medicine, surgery etc. less often.
2. Find a way to get costs charged to patients/billed to insurance down. Drugs, office visits, surgery's etc. all cost way more than they should as the health care system has become nothing but another capitalist system focused only on maximizing profits rather than providing the best and most efficient health care for patients.[/QUOTE]
You aren't going to do any of that without forcing people to get regular medical screenings and then have some complicated matrix to tell them how much they need to pay for medical care, etc - which opens the door for a whole mess of government-in-your-daily life arguments.
I haven't been to the gym since 2004. I eat one meal a day, that's usually fast food. I also have not been to the doctor in about 12 years. So by what you are saying I should have to pay more for medical insurance than you, even though I have used the healthcare system far less than those that I know that eat better and exercise more, right? I guess your logic is that I am a ticking time bomb, right?
If you are going to put forth this type of medical payment based on health proposal, then what about so-called healthy people that live dangerously? Why stop at the body? What about people that own motorcycles, get lots of speeding tickets, are known to mountain climb without the proper training or gear? Why are those not as valid to raise premiums? After all, it doesn't matter how healthy you are, if someone is known to speed around town on a bullet bike you are statistically a lot more likely to end up using the emergency room than a fat couch potato (most likely) - so why shouldn't they pay more for insurance as well?
It's always seemed to me that when it comes time to start pointing fingers at who should pay for all the "good ideas" coming out of Washington, the supporters almost always find ways to single out the people that are not them to do so.
I just don't get the argument that lifestyle tax should start and stop at exercise and eating right when there are many more factors in a persons lifestyle that makes them a statistically higher medical liability.
But if they want to be worthless, unhealthy fat slobs, then they should pay higher premiums--not have everyone pay higher premiums to subsidize their more frequent need of health care. See the stats I posted earlier on the thread on how much an obese person accrues in a year in health care costs on average vs. people at healthy weight.
Just like people with perfect driving records get discounts, so should those of us who keep our selves in great shape and don't need to use the health care system very often.
The only ways to save money on health care spending are:
1. Get the populace, on average, healthier and needing medicine, surgery etc. less often.
2. Find a way to get costs charged to patients/billed to insurance down. Drugs, office visits, surgery's etc. all cost way more than they should as the health care system has become nothing but another capitalist system focused only on maximizing profits rather than providing the best and most efficient health care for patients.[/QUOTE]
You aren't going to do any of that without forcing people to get regular medical screenings and then have some complicated matrix to tell them how much they need to pay for medical care, etc - which opens the door for a whole mess of government-in-your-daily life arguments.
I haven't been to the gym since 2004. I eat one meal a day, that's usually fast food. I also have not been to the doctor in about 12 years. So by what you are saying I should have to pay more for medical insurance than you, even though I have used the healthcare system far less than those that I know that eat better and exercise more, right? I guess your logic is that I am a ticking time bomb, right?
If you are going to put forth this type of medical payment based on health proposal, then what about so-called healthy people that live dangerously? Why stop at the body? What about people that own motorcycles, get lots of speeding tickets, are known to mountain climb without the proper training or gear? Why are those not as valid to raise premiums? After all, it doesn't matter how healthy you are, if someone is known to speed around town on a bullet bike you are statistically a lot more likely to end up using the emergency room than a fat couch potato (most likely) - so why shouldn't they pay more for insurance as well?
It's always seemed to me that when it comes time to start pointing fingers at who should pay for all the "good ideas" coming out of Washington, the supporters almost always find ways to single out the people that are not them to do so.
I just don't get the argument that lifestyle tax should start and stop at exercise and eating right when there are many more factors in a persons lifestyle that makes them a statistically higher medical liability.
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you sure?[/QUOTE]
Shipping in "a third of doctors" is very different from a "third of primary care trusts" use out of country doctors for these shifts.
Also the problem isn't so much a lack of doctors as it is the doctors got a new contract limiting hours and allowing them to opt out of weekends.
Shipping in "a third of doctors" is very different from a "third of primary care trusts" use out of country doctors for these shifts.
Also the problem isn't so much a lack of doctors as it is the doctors got a new contract limiting hours and allowing them to opt out of weekends.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Lemme get this straight - your argument is that, all these unhealthy people are suddenly going to rush to the doctor to get told that they're unhealthy? Or do you propose mandatory health screenings as well?[/QUOTE]
My argument, and the argument of the literature in economics and medicine, is that people who don't have insurance and don't have much in the way of savings - in other words, those who can't afford medical care - don't go see a physician until their ailments are in a "dire need" situation.
Aren't you among the anti-health-care reform crowd who argues that "nobody is denied care in the US!" crowd? The same folks who argue that freeloaders sop up resources from emergency rooms and then never pay the bill, leaving good honest insurance-having americans to pay the residuals of their freeloading?
Well, if you believe that, then you would prefer that, if poor people are going to take "your money" by virtue of higher health care costs, they should be courteous enough to get occasional checkups so as to reduce the cost burden to you - because checkups are cheaper than major surgery and the stuff I listed above.
My argument, and the argument of the literature in economics and medicine, is that people who don't have insurance and don't have much in the way of savings - in other words, those who can't afford medical care - don't go see a physician until their ailments are in a "dire need" situation.
Aren't you among the anti-health-care reform crowd who argues that "nobody is denied care in the US!" crowd? The same folks who argue that freeloaders sop up resources from emergency rooms and then never pay the bill, leaving good honest insurance-having americans to pay the residuals of their freeloading?
Well, if you believe that, then you would prefer that, if poor people are going to take "your money" by virtue of higher health care costs, they should be courteous enough to get occasional checkups so as to reduce the cost burden to you - because checkups are cheaper than major surgery and the stuff I listed above.
[quote name='UncleBob']So... a lack of doctors willing/able to work on weekends. What a great system, where you have plenty of doctors who don't want to work....[/QUOTE]
You do realize now the distinction between a "third of doctors" being flown in and a "third of primary care trusts" flying doctors correct?
Yes or no.
Because if you get it we can then move on to the distinction between "lack of doctors" and an adequate amount of doctors used inefficiently.
You do realize now the distinction between a "third of doctors" being flown in and a "third of primary care trusts" flying doctors correct?
Yes or no.
Because if you get it we can then move on to the distinction between "lack of doctors" and an adequate amount of doctors used inefficiently.
[quote name='tivo']
now i agree partly with dmaul on #2. just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these cost way more than they should and would if covered by the individual.
[/QUOTE]
That's not what I was saying. I was saying doctors shouldn't be charging so much for routine office visits. I'm going to have to go in soon just to tell mine that I need a new prescription for Allegra since I'm out of refills, and I'll pay a $15 copay and my insurance will get billed over $100 for the doctor doing no more than walking in, asking how I'm doing and writing me a prescription.
That's just absurd and there needs to be some way to cut back those kind of costs somehow--but I have no idea how to do so.
[quote name='camoor']Now you're putting words in his mouth.
He said unhealthy slobs should pay more - not people with preexisting conditions.[/QUOTE]
Yep, pre-existing conditions should be covered 100%. All I was saying is there should be discounts for people who are healthy--body fat in the good ranges, don't smoke, blood pressure and choloesterol levels are good etc. etc.
[quote name='UncleBob']Lemme get this straight - your argument is that, all these unhealthy people are suddenly going to rush to the doctor to get told that they're unhealthy? Or do you propose mandatory health screenings as well?[/QUOTE]
Insurance companies should require a yearly physical (that they pay for in full) for coverage to continue.
[quote name='thrustbucket']You aren't going to do any of that without forcing people to get regular medical screenings and then have some complicated matrix to tell them how much they need to pay for medical care, etc - which opens the door for a whole mess of government-in-your-daily life arguments.
I haven't been to the gym since 2004. I eat one meal a day, that's usually fast food. I also have not been to the doctor in about 12 years. So by what you are saying I should have to pay more for medical insurance than you, even though I have used the healthcare system far less than those that I know that eat better and exercise more, right? I guess your logic is that I am a ticking time bomb, right?
If you are going to put forth this type of medical payment based on health proposal, then what about so-called healthy people that live dangerously? Why stop at the body? What about people that own motorcycles, get lots of speeding tickets, are known to mountain climb without the proper training or gear? Why are those not as valid to raise premiums? After all, it doesn't matter how healthy you are, if someone is known to speed around town on a bullet bike you are statistically a lot more likely to end up using the emergency room than a fat couch potato (most likely) - so why shouldn't they pay more for insurance as well?
I just don't get the argument that lifestyle tax should start and stop at exercise and eating right when there are many more factors in a persons lifestyle that makes them a statistically higher medical liability.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.
Insurance, especially any public option, should pay for and require yearly physicals and people should be able to earn discounts on their premiums by meeting simple health standards in those physicals like not smoking, having body fat in the health range, blood pressure and choloesterol in the health ranges etc. It doesn't have to be a complex matrix, just keep it on simple indicators like those which everyone is familiar with and can easily understand.
The problem with doing the same for dangerous behavior is it's hard to track as it's not something that can be gauged in a yearly physical as people can just lie about riding motorcycles, rock climbing, sky diving etc.
And that just gets out of the bounds of health care. A goal of a health care system focused on prevention is to get as much of the citizenry as possible to take an interest of their health and at least do the bare minimums of keeping their weight in check, not smoking, keeping their blood pressure and cholesterol in check, etc.
As for you, if that's the way you're living, then yes you are a ticking time bomb. You may get way with if fine being younger. But keep living with no exercise, eating one shitty fast food meal a day etc. and you'll be lucky to make it past your 50's if you make it that far.
But I also don't support having a mandatory health care plan that people have to buy into either. People like you that don't give two shits about their health and don't go to the doctor shouldn't have to pay for comprehensive medical coverage. At the most they should have to pay for some barebones insurance that covers only emergency medical care so they're not leeching on everyone else when they finally have a heart attack or get in a car accident etc.
now i agree partly with dmaul on #2. just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these cost way more than they should and would if covered by the individual.
[/QUOTE]
That's not what I was saying. I was saying doctors shouldn't be charging so much for routine office visits. I'm going to have to go in soon just to tell mine that I need a new prescription for Allegra since I'm out of refills, and I'll pay a $15 copay and my insurance will get billed over $100 for the doctor doing no more than walking in, asking how I'm doing and writing me a prescription.
That's just absurd and there needs to be some way to cut back those kind of costs somehow--but I have no idea how to do so.
[quote name='camoor']Now you're putting words in his mouth.
He said unhealthy slobs should pay more - not people with preexisting conditions.[/QUOTE]
Yep, pre-existing conditions should be covered 100%. All I was saying is there should be discounts for people who are healthy--body fat in the good ranges, don't smoke, blood pressure and choloesterol levels are good etc. etc.
[quote name='UncleBob']Lemme get this straight - your argument is that, all these unhealthy people are suddenly going to rush to the doctor to get told that they're unhealthy? Or do you propose mandatory health screenings as well?[/QUOTE]
Insurance companies should require a yearly physical (that they pay for in full) for coverage to continue.
[quote name='thrustbucket']You aren't going to do any of that without forcing people to get regular medical screenings and then have some complicated matrix to tell them how much they need to pay for medical care, etc - which opens the door for a whole mess of government-in-your-daily life arguments.
I haven't been to the gym since 2004. I eat one meal a day, that's usually fast food. I also have not been to the doctor in about 12 years. So by what you are saying I should have to pay more for medical insurance than you, even though I have used the healthcare system far less than those that I know that eat better and exercise more, right? I guess your logic is that I am a ticking time bomb, right?
If you are going to put forth this type of medical payment based on health proposal, then what about so-called healthy people that live dangerously? Why stop at the body? What about people that own motorcycles, get lots of speeding tickets, are known to mountain climb without the proper training or gear? Why are those not as valid to raise premiums? After all, it doesn't matter how healthy you are, if someone is known to speed around town on a bullet bike you are statistically a lot more likely to end up using the emergency room than a fat couch potato (most likely) - so why shouldn't they pay more for insurance as well?
I just don't get the argument that lifestyle tax should start and stop at exercise and eating right when there are many more factors in a persons lifestyle that makes them a statistically higher medical liability.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.
Insurance, especially any public option, should pay for and require yearly physicals and people should be able to earn discounts on their premiums by meeting simple health standards in those physicals like not smoking, having body fat in the health range, blood pressure and choloesterol in the health ranges etc. It doesn't have to be a complex matrix, just keep it on simple indicators like those which everyone is familiar with and can easily understand.
The problem with doing the same for dangerous behavior is it's hard to track as it's not something that can be gauged in a yearly physical as people can just lie about riding motorcycles, rock climbing, sky diving etc.
And that just gets out of the bounds of health care. A goal of a health care system focused on prevention is to get as much of the citizenry as possible to take an interest of their health and at least do the bare minimums of keeping their weight in check, not smoking, keeping their blood pressure and cholesterol in check, etc.
As for you, if that's the way you're living, then yes you are a ticking time bomb. You may get way with if fine being younger. But keep living with no exercise, eating one shitty fast food meal a day etc. and you'll be lucky to make it past your 50's if you make it that far.
But I also don't support having a mandatory health care plan that people have to buy into either. People like you that don't give two shits about their health and don't go to the doctor shouldn't have to pay for comprehensive medical coverage. At the most they should have to pay for some barebones insurance that covers only emergency medical care so they're not leeching on everyone else when they finally have a heart attack or get in a car accident etc.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.[/quote]
We already have lifestyle taxes (cigarettes, etc) so why not have more I guess. It's interesting that you mention "safely" here though. How do you decide who lives safely?
Simply going by the history of how our government operates - as soon as you start giving a few harmless discounts for getting a pat on the head at a health screening, you WILL have legislators eventually trying to find other ways to measure how often a person is statistically likely to visit an emergency room based on anything they can possibly track in any way. That's just government.
So all I am saying is we need to be VERY Careful when opening any of those doors, scruitinizing just how important it is we do something like that and how beneficial it will be.
As for making it past my 50's, I hope you're right that I don't. My life philosophy is about burning out, not fading away. For some people it's about quality of life, not it's length - and if you don't enjoy eating expensive healthy food and exercising, why waste your precious few non-working hours doing so?
I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.[/quote]
We already have lifestyle taxes (cigarettes, etc) so why not have more I guess. It's interesting that you mention "safely" here though. How do you decide who lives safely?
I guess I am ok with some of that, as long as the laughable BMI scale is not involved. I think weight and even body fat is a poor indicator of health (and many scientists agree - generally a fat person that exercises regularly is healthier than a skinny person that doesn't). I am more ok with things like cholesterol levels allowing you to have a small bonus on your premiums.
What I was alluding to was a slippery slope (which you usually don't believe in, hisotorically). A lot of these suggestions open the door to things like neighbor spying.
Simply going by the history of how our government operates - as soon as you start giving a few harmless discounts for getting a pat on the head at a health screening, you WILL have legislators eventually trying to find other ways to measure how often a person is statistically likely to visit an emergency room based on anything they can possibly track in any way. That's just government.
So all I am saying is we need to be VERY Careful when opening any of those doors, scruitinizing just how important it is we do something like that and how beneficial it will be.
Well that's your opinion, and maybe statistics are on your opinion's side, but everyone has heard a life-long chain smoker that lives into their 90's too. Life is always a dice roll - living a so-called healthy lifestyle simply gives you an extra die or two to roll, but doesn't guarantee what's rolled.
As for making it past my 50's, I hope you're right that I don't. My life philosophy is about burning out, not fading away. For some people it's about quality of life, not it's length - and if you don't enjoy eating expensive healthy food and exercising, why waste your precious few non-working hours doing so?
I agree with this.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']You do realize now the distinction between a "third of doctors" being flown in and a "third of primary care trusts" flying doctors correct?
Yes or no.
Because if you get it we can then move on to the distinction between "lack of doctors" and an adequate amount of doctors used inefficiently.[/QUOTE]
I'll say no. Please elaborate on the distinction.
Yes or no.
Because if you get it we can then move on to the distinction between "lack of doctors" and an adequate amount of doctors used inefficiently.[/QUOTE]
I'll say no. Please elaborate on the distinction.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
I see two camps.
The libertarian paradise camp and the reform camp.
Wake up call to all you budding libertarians - the system you are fighting so hard to save does not reflect your political philosophy.
I'm not saying a libertarian system wouldn't be a disaster (it would) but it's also never going to happen.
So you either throw in your chips now and get a realtively mildly reformed healthcare system.
Or risk a few epidemics, wait till the American healthcare system collapses under it's own weight (and it's going to be ugly), and your socialized medicine boogeyman will really come to visit.
Choice is yours.
The libertarian paradise camp and the reform camp.
Wake up call to all you budding libertarians - the system you are fighting so hard to save does not reflect your political philosophy.
I'm not saying a libertarian system wouldn't be a disaster (it would) but it's also never going to happen.
So you either throw in your chips now and get a realtively mildly reformed healthcare system.
Or risk a few epidemics, wait till the American healthcare system collapses under it's own weight (and it's going to be ugly), and your socialized medicine boogeyman will really come to visit.
Choice is yours.
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's not what I was saying. I was saying doctors shouldn't be charging so much for routine office visits. I'm going to have to go in soon just to tell mine that I need a new prescription for Allegra since I'm out of refills, and I'll pay a $15 copay and my insurance will get billed over $100 for the doctor doing no more than walking in, asking how I'm doing and writing me a prescription.
That's just absurd and there needs to be some way to cut back those kind of costs somehow--but I have no idea how to do so.[/QUOTE]
I proposed 2 ideas....
[quote name='tivo'] Just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these prices are higher than they should and would be if covered by the individual. [/QUOTE]
[quote name='tivo']another issue that hasn't really been addressed here that would definitely save money is that health insurance should not be attached with one's employment. companies receive rediculous amounts of money from the government to help them pay for their employee;s insurance. cut that BS out. let everyone pay for the private insurance they want/need on an individual basis and offer discounts/rebates to individuals with insurance rather than only to companies (although id prefer not to have any discount/rebate from owning health insurance as what would stop the insurance companies from raising their prices by an equivalent amount).[/QUOTE]
both of these ideas make the individual price conscience and force them to shop around instead of allowing for a $150 routine check up that someone else will pay. It will also increase competition to some extent among hospitals/physicians as people choose with their own dollars on who to visit. However, notice that I've been saying price- medical care costs are unchangeable (e.g. $8 million for a new drug, $100 a day for Dr. office, etc)- but prices may be adjusted.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, pre-existing conditions should be covered 100%. All I was saying is there should be discounts for people who are healthy--body fat in the good ranges, don't smoke, blood pressure and choloesterol levels are good etc. etc..[/QUOTE]
why shouldn't people who require more resources/services have to pay for it? Bigger people need more food; smaller cars need less fuel, etc. should their be one flat rate for purchasing any amount of anything? NO! So listen all you self-proclaimed compassionate people out there: life's not fair. everyone needs different amounts of everything and it is impossible to appropriate the right amount of resources to every person. that's where individuals can prioritize their expenditures and get at least the minimum of what they need (the gov. already steps in with medicaide. medicare, welfare checks, etc.). should a healthy person have to give up his hard earned money to pay for other's health care when he needs it on education, food, housing, etc. That's just stupid. now here's what I said again....
[quote name='tivo']
unhealthy people, or people with preexisting conditions, do pay, and should pay, higher premiums because they are more likely to require medical care. but there are laws in place that prevent insurance companies from excluding high risk people all together. [/QUOTE]
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.[/QUOTE]
although that sounds impossible to monitor, if you'd want it, leave it up to the health insurance companies to decide what's "risky". the government definition of adequate health care or a healthy lifestyle would be completely arbitrary and meet their demands- along with other problems associated bureaucracy.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Insurance, especially any public option, should pay for and require yearly physicals.[/QUOTE]
Go tojail fat camp if you're not healthy enough. "universal health care" is really just pretty words for government mandates.
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem with doing the same for dangerous behavior is it's hard to track as it's not something that can be gauged in a yearly physical as people can just lie about riding motorcycles, rock climbing, sky diving etc.[/QUOTE]
oh, so thats the problem- its hard to monitor the behavior. I thought it was the whole personal freedom thing.
That's just absurd and there needs to be some way to cut back those kind of costs somehow--but I have no idea how to do so.[/QUOTE]
I proposed 2 ideas....
[quote name='tivo'] Just like auto insurance does not cover oil changes, gas fill ups, etc. routine office visits and check ups should not be covered by insurance and instead should be paid out of pocket by individuals. these prices are higher than they should and would be if covered by the individual. [/QUOTE]
[quote name='tivo']another issue that hasn't really been addressed here that would definitely save money is that health insurance should not be attached with one's employment. companies receive rediculous amounts of money from the government to help them pay for their employee;s insurance. cut that BS out. let everyone pay for the private insurance they want/need on an individual basis and offer discounts/rebates to individuals with insurance rather than only to companies (although id prefer not to have any discount/rebate from owning health insurance as what would stop the insurance companies from raising their prices by an equivalent amount).[/QUOTE]
both of these ideas make the individual price conscience and force them to shop around instead of allowing for a $150 routine check up that someone else will pay. It will also increase competition to some extent among hospitals/physicians as people choose with their own dollars on who to visit. However, notice that I've been saying price- medical care costs are unchangeable (e.g. $8 million for a new drug, $100 a day for Dr. office, etc)- but prices may be adjusted.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, pre-existing conditions should be covered 100%. All I was saying is there should be discounts for people who are healthy--body fat in the good ranges, don't smoke, blood pressure and choloesterol levels are good etc. etc..[/QUOTE]
why shouldn't people who require more resources/services have to pay for it? Bigger people need more food; smaller cars need less fuel, etc. should their be one flat rate for purchasing any amount of anything? NO! So listen all you self-proclaimed compassionate people out there: life's not fair. everyone needs different amounts of everything and it is impossible to appropriate the right amount of resources to every person. that's where individuals can prioritize their expenditures and get at least the minimum of what they need (the gov. already steps in with medicaide. medicare, welfare checks, etc.). should a healthy person have to give up his hard earned money to pay for other's health care when he needs it on education, food, housing, etc. That's just stupid. now here's what I said again....
[quote name='tivo']
unhealthy people, or people with preexisting conditions, do pay, and should pay, higher premiums because they are more likely to require medical care. but there are laws in place that prevent insurance companies from excluding high risk people all together. [/QUOTE]
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm saying that people who live healthily (and safely) should get discounts from the base starting rate of insurance premium. If you want to phrase that as a lifestyle tax so be it.[/QUOTE]
although that sounds impossible to monitor, if you'd want it, leave it up to the health insurance companies to decide what's "risky". the government definition of adequate health care or a healthy lifestyle would be completely arbitrary and meet their demands- along with other problems associated bureaucracy.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Insurance, especially any public option, should pay for and require yearly physicals.[/QUOTE]
Go to
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem with doing the same for dangerous behavior is it's hard to track as it's not something that can be gauged in a yearly physical as people can just lie about riding motorcycles, rock climbing, sky diving etc.[/QUOTE]
oh, so thats the problem- its hard to monitor the behavior. I thought it was the whole personal freedom thing.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Die, Joliet Jake, Die!
[quote name='tivo']both of these ideas make the individual price conscience and force them to shop around instead of allowing for a $150 routine check up that someone else will pay. It will also increase competition to some extent among hospitals/physicians as people choose with their own dollars on who to visit. However, notice that I've been saying price- medical care costs are unchangeable (e.g. $8 million for a new drug, $100 a day for Dr. office, etc)- but prices may be adjusted.
[/quote]
I don't like that. People should be able to be covered by insurance to go to the doctor when they need medicine for allergies etc. Doctors just shouldn't be charging $150 to the insurance companies for whats just a quick prescription visit.
Because health care should be a right, not a privilege. People shouldn't have to pay more because they were born with asthma, had a genetic risk of cancer , were born with heart on brain defects etc. etc.
It's one thing to not give some discounts to fat slobs etc., its another to punish people sick from no fault of their own to pay higher costs for their required medical care.
It just gets at the whole problem of the health care industry. It never should have been a purely captialist endeavor ran by doctors, surgeons, and pharmaceutical companies out to maximize their profits first. Health care should be a basic right to citizens in any organized civilization and based more on a socialist/charitable framework where people work to improve quality of life first, and to get rich second.
That's just anti-government, paranoid nonsense.
There's a lot of good research on what's healthy bodyfat percentages are for age groups (not BMI, actual body fat percentages), healthy cholesterol levels, blood pressure, that smoking is a huge risk etc. etc.
Any policies for discounts for being healthy needs to be backed by a large body of research evidence on what the healthy ranges in tests for those conditions are. No need for some huge bureaucracy or for insurance companies to decide. Make it up to the CDC or NIH or the Surgeon General to set the thresholds. i.e. leave it to the experts.
Again, people have personal freedom to be lazy fat slobs, to chain smoke, etc.. They just won't earn the discounts in premiums that those of us who take care of ourselves can and will have to pay the base rate.
There's no government control there. Each individual can decide if they want to make some changes to try to be healthy--both to feel better, live longer etc., as well as to get some discounts on premiums just like safe drivers do on auto insurance.
I'm not talking huge discounts. Maybe just 5-10% breaks each year if you are in the healthy ranges in your yearly physical. Something to give lazy slobs some added incentive to get in shape, and to give those of us in tip top shape a small break in our premiums.
Those who want to stay on the couch eating chips and fast food all the time can do so, and just pay a premium 5-10% higher than people who passed their yearly physicals in the healthy categories and earned the discount.
[/quote]
I don't like that. People should be able to be covered by insurance to go to the doctor when they need medicine for allergies etc. Doctors just shouldn't be charging $150 to the insurance companies for whats just a quick prescription visit.
Because health care should be a right, not a privilege. People shouldn't have to pay more because they were born with asthma, had a genetic risk of cancer , were born with heart on brain defects etc. etc.
It's one thing to not give some discounts to fat slobs etc., its another to punish people sick from no fault of their own to pay higher costs for their required medical care.
It just gets at the whole problem of the health care industry. It never should have been a purely captialist endeavor ran by doctors, surgeons, and pharmaceutical companies out to maximize their profits first. Health care should be a basic right to citizens in any organized civilization and based more on a socialist/charitable framework where people work to improve quality of life first, and to get rich second.
That's just anti-government, paranoid nonsense.
There's a lot of good research on what's healthy bodyfat percentages are for age groups (not BMI, actual body fat percentages), healthy cholesterol levels, blood pressure, that smoking is a huge risk etc. etc.
Any policies for discounts for being healthy needs to be backed by a large body of research evidence on what the healthy ranges in tests for those conditions are. No need for some huge bureaucracy or for insurance companies to decide. Make it up to the CDC or NIH or the Surgeon General to set the thresholds. i.e. leave it to the experts.
Again, people have personal freedom to be lazy fat slobs, to chain smoke, etc.. They just won't earn the discounts in premiums that those of us who take care of ourselves can and will have to pay the base rate.
There's no government control there. Each individual can decide if they want to make some changes to try to be healthy--both to feel better, live longer etc., as well as to get some discounts on premiums just like safe drivers do on auto insurance.
I'm not talking huge discounts. Maybe just 5-10% breaks each year if you are in the healthy ranges in your yearly physical. Something to give lazy slobs some added incentive to get in shape, and to give those of us in tip top shape a small break in our premiums.
Those who want to stay on the couch eating chips and fast food all the time can do so, and just pay a premium 5-10% higher than people who passed their yearly physicals in the healthy categories and earned the discount.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
By premiums, you mean tax percent, right?
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']By premiums, you mean tax percent, right?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the system.
For private insurance, or a public option that people have to pay into, it would be a reduction on premiums.
If it was totally universal, government ran insurance, then yeah it would be a tax break.
I more support the first, vs. universal health care. There needs to be a cheaper, public option for people who don't get benefits from their job to buy into (and hopefully force all private premiums down some). But I think going to totally government ran insurance is too extreme. I think with a public option private insurance will drop prices and find a way to compete by offering access to more doctors etc. than the public option--so I'm not one who thinks any public option will kill off private insurance.
Depends on the system.
For private insurance, or a public option that people have to pay into, it would be a reduction on premiums.
If it was totally universal, government ran insurance, then yeah it would be a tax break.
I more support the first, vs. universal health care. There needs to be a cheaper, public option for people who don't get benefits from their job to buy into (and hopefully force all private premiums down some). But I think going to totally government ran insurance is too extreme. I think with a public option private insurance will drop prices and find a way to compete by offering access to more doctors etc. than the public option--so I'm not one who thinks any public option will kill off private insurance.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']I see two camps.
The libertarian paradise camp and the reform camp.
Wake up call to all you budding libertarians - the system you are fighting so hard to save does not reflect your political philosophy. [/quote]
It could also be called the "Pretty happy with most of the way the country was founded" camp and the "We need to completely overhaul everything" camp.
Kidding aside, I don't consider myself 100% libertarian. If I were, I wouldn't care what others thought or did to the extent that I wouldn't frequent this forum.
We are talking about something that will be the most costly endeavor in American History. Not only that, but something that will affect every American directly as long as America exists. That's no small potatoes. And even the most ardent supporter of the most costly single payer system, etc. should not support ANY bill that hasn't been over a fine tooth comb by every single voting member of our government. And it would help if our own president could answer basic questions about how it would work in practice.
It isn't an overstatement to say that this magnitude of change and cost has the potential to change the face of America, for better or worse, more so than anything since the Constitution was written.
Per the above, the only choice I am making is the "whatever you do, be super
ing careful" choice. When it starts to feel like rushed change for changes sake, I'm not on board, neither are most Americans.
The libertarian paradise camp and the reform camp.
Wake up call to all you budding libertarians - the system you are fighting so hard to save does not reflect your political philosophy. [/quote]
It could also be called the "Pretty happy with most of the way the country was founded" camp and the "We need to completely overhaul everything" camp.
Kidding aside, I don't consider myself 100% libertarian. If I were, I wouldn't care what others thought or did to the extent that I wouldn't frequent this forum.
I am not even sure what a libertarian healthcare system would look like. We haven't had anything close to that, to my knowledge, in 150 years. As soon as soon as the two-way door of influence starts swinging between government and any industry - it's not a libertarian system.
I think I, and everyone else you are probably referring to, understand that. We realize change has to happen and will happen. We are just very concerned what flavor that change comes in and what possible slippery slopes it creates for the future.
We are talking about something that will be the most costly endeavor in American History. Not only that, but something that will affect every American directly as long as America exists. That's no small potatoes. And even the most ardent supporter of the most costly single payer system, etc. should not support ANY bill that hasn't been over a fine tooth comb by every single voting member of our government. And it would help if our own president could answer basic questions about how it would work in practice.
It isn't an overstatement to say that this magnitude of change and cost has the potential to change the face of America, for better or worse, more so than anything since the Constitution was written.
Per the above, the only choice I am making is the "whatever you do, be super
ing careful" choice. When it starts to feel like rushed change for changes sake, I'm not on board, neither are most Americans.
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Die, Joliet Jake, Die![/QUOTE]
Oh there are so many here who wish i would....:lol:
Oh there are so many here who wish i would....:lol:
[quote name='thrustbucket']We are talking about something that will be the most costly endeavor in American History.[/quote]
That it literally meaningless in light of the fact that it isn't as if the money wouldn't have been spent on health care anyway.
Done right reform means savings in the Trillions over the years.
Strawman and a half.
Again for the umpteenth time reform as in Universal Healthcare was considered seriously since 1948, has been practically been incrementally moved towards since then and almost enacted in the early 90's. Also other countries have done it for decades this isn't new territory by any means.
An Alms Bowl and self surgery.
That it literally meaningless in light of the fact that it isn't as if the money wouldn't have been spent on health care anyway.
Done right reform means savings in the Trillions over the years.
Strawman and a half.
Again for the umpteenth time reform as in Universal Healthcare was considered seriously since 1948, has been practically been incrementally moved towards since then and almost enacted in the early 90's. Also other countries have done it for decades this isn't new territory by any means.
An Alms Bowl and self surgery.
tivo
CAGiversary!
i completely disagree with you dmaul1114. you sound like some high schooler who's spent too much time listening to the art teachers. I see problems in every idea you propose and will cease any further conversation with you. You can count that as a 'Win' if it'll make you feel better.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']To say that preventative care is not cheaper than major surgery is a medical/economic argument akin to intelligent design. It goes against all major research in both fields, has no basis in reality, and requires a willingness to come to a conclusion about something without having any undertaking in gathering actual facts first.[/QUOTE]
DId you read what I wrote? Of course it's cheaper for the person that has something wrong with them. That's obvious. But, for example, to test 1,000 people at $100 a pop is more expensive than one person spending $5,000 for surgery. Do we want to prevent people from needing that surgery, and the pain and suffering that comes with it? Of course we do. But to pretend it's cheaper is just fantasy for many "preventative" measures. Of course, there are some things that can be done that do save money; nobody is disputing that, just the notion that all/most of them save money and it's a magic bullet. It isn't.
See here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
DId you read what I wrote? Of course it's cheaper for the person that has something wrong with them. That's obvious. But, for example, to test 1,000 people at $100 a pop is more expensive than one person spending $5,000 for surgery. Do we want to prevent people from needing that surgery, and the pain and suffering that comes with it? Of course we do. But to pretend it's cheaper is just fantasy for many "preventative" measures. Of course, there are some things that can be done that do save money; nobody is disputing that, just the notion that all/most of them save money and it's a magic bullet. It isn't.
See here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']
why shouldn't people who require more resources/services have to pay for it? Bigger people need more food; smaller cars need less fuel, etc. should their be one flat rate for purchasing any amount of anything? NO! So listen all you self-proclaimed compassionate people out there: life's not fair. everyone needs different amounts of everything and it is impossible to appropriate the right amount of resources to every person. that's where individuals can prioritize their expenditures and get at least the minimum of what they need (the gov. already steps in with medicaide. medicare, welfare checks, etc.). should a healthy person have to give up his hard earned money to pay for other's health care when he needs it on education, food, housing, etc. That's just stupid. now here's what I said again....
[/QUOTE]
So people with preexisting conditions are just screwed, huh? I'm glad you're okay with that.
why shouldn't people who require more resources/services have to pay for it? Bigger people need more food; smaller cars need less fuel, etc. should their be one flat rate for purchasing any amount of anything? NO! So listen all you self-proclaimed compassionate people out there: life's not fair. everyone needs different amounts of everything and it is impossible to appropriate the right amount of resources to every person. that's where individuals can prioritize their expenditures and get at least the minimum of what they need (the gov. already steps in with medicaide. medicare, welfare checks, etc.). should a healthy person have to give up his hard earned money to pay for other's health care when he needs it on education, food, housing, etc. That's just stupid. now here's what I said again....
[/QUOTE]
So people with preexisting conditions are just screwed, huh? I'm glad you're okay with that.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='elprincipe']DId you read what I wrote? Of course it's cheaper for the person that has something wrong with them. That's obvious. But, for example, to test 1,000 people at $100 a pop is more expensive than one person spending $5,000 for surgery. Do we want to prevent people from needing that surgery, and the pain and suffering that comes with it? Of course we do. But to pretend it's cheaper is just fantasy for many "preventative" measures. Of course, there are some things that can be done that do save money; nobody is disputing that, just the notion that all/most of them save money and it's a magic bullet. It isn't.
See here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
[/QUOTE]
Where in the do you get the statistic that only one out of 1,000 people will need surgery? And where do you go to get $5000 surgery!? Gastric-bypass surgery has an average list price of $35,552 and for some reason skyrockets to $59,500 in the south.
Obviously some surgeries are cheaper than others but to assume $5000 is the average cost is pushing it. Maybe in India.
Preventive care is no magic bullet but it sure is a step in the right direction.
See here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
Where in the
do you get the statistic that only one out of 1,000 people will need surgery? And where do you go to get $5000 surgery!? Gastric-bypass surgery has an average list price of $35,552 and for some reason skyrockets to $59,500 in the south.Obviously some surgeries are cheaper than others but to assume $5000 is the average cost is pushing it. Maybe in India.
Preventive care is no magic bullet but it sure is a step in the right direction.
JolietJake
Banned
Well i tried to attend the local town hall meeting tonight but didn't get in. I did meet some rather...interesting people though. A couple of women who embodied everything i hate about people who are anti-reform.
When asked by someone standing in line what they should do for health care (they were uninsured) the women told them to "just go to an ER, they have to take you" Then one of them blurted out one of the dumbest things i've heard since this debate started, "Thars insurance on thuh innernet, or so ah've heard."
No those aren't my typos or spelling mistakes, that's just how they sounded. The sad thing is that this is the typical anti-reform person in the area. I wish i could have recorded them saying this, it would have been a hit on youtube.
When asked by someone standing in line what they should do for health care (they were uninsured) the women told them to "just go to an ER, they have to take you" Then one of them blurted out one of the dumbest things i've heard since this debate started, "Thars insurance on thuh innernet, or so ah've heard."
No those aren't my typos or spelling mistakes, that's just how they sounded. The sad thing is that this is the typical anti-reform person in the area. I wish i could have recorded them saying this, it would have been a hit on youtube.
Last edited by a moderator:
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='docvinh']So people with preexisting conditions are just screwed, huh? I'm glad you're okay with that.[/QUOTE]
not totally screwed because they still get access to healthcare and insurance companies are prevented by law from dropping them all together. they just have to pay a greater rate because they are more likely to call in sick (aka, their share).
DONT START WITH THAT BULLSHIT. people are born with different advantages and disadvantages- life is no utopia. saying what you just said doesn't make you more compassionate or morally superior or anything, except make you sound stupid.
not totally screwed because they still get access to healthcare and insurance companies are prevented by law from dropping them all together. they just have to pay a greater rate because they are more likely to call in sick (aka, their share).
DONT START WITH THAT BULLSHIT. people are born with different advantages and disadvantages- life is no utopia. saying what you just said doesn't make you more compassionate or morally superior or anything, except make you sound stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
...
I am lost.
I am lost.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='The Crotch']...
I am lost.[/QUOTE]
I am lost.[/QUOTE]
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='elcheap0']This deathcare will be the death of us all. You cant tax people back to good health.
[/QUOTE]
You also can't have healthcare costs increase faster than GDP and personal income forever, too.
You also can't have healthcare costs increase faster than GDP and personal income forever, too.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']not totally screwed because they still get access to healthcare and insurance companies are prevented by law from dropping them all together. they just have to pay a greater rate because they are more likely to call in sick (aka, their share).
DONT START WITH THAT BULLSHIT. people are born with different advantages and disadvantages- life is no utopia. saying what you just said doesn't make you more compassionate or morally superior or anything, except make you sound stupid.[/QUOTE]
Hey, if you're okay with it, why are you getting pissed off? Furthermore, at what extra rate do they have to pay, what if they can't afford it? Then they're just screwed, right?
DONT START WITH THAT BULLSHIT. people are born with different advantages and disadvantages- life is no utopia. saying what you just said doesn't make you more compassionate or morally superior or anything, except make you sound stupid.[/QUOTE]
Hey, if you're okay with it, why are you getting pissed off? Furthermore, at what extra rate do they have to pay, what if they can't afford it? Then they're just screwed, right?
JolietJake
Banned
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
MOC's breast reduction cost 19K.
Caitlyn's ear tubes cost 4K.
Caitlyn's ear tubes cost 4K.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Our money will be so worthless soon that some of you guys will be begging for government health care.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
You are either going to have to strengthen the government against corporate interference, or throw a bone to the starving. You small government people should try working in a shirt factory.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml
And you guys whined about our privacy disappearing under W
And you guys whined about our privacy disappearing under W
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I'd love to work in a shirt factory that's government subsidized.
---
It sounds like meaningful reform will cost more than we can afford.
In the past, when countries come up against the inevitable "We need this but can't afford it" problems, they just go conquer another country and ravage it's resources. Now that we don't have the stomach for that, it seems we have no real solution other than dig the ditch of "progress" deeper and cross fingers.
---
It sounds like meaningful reform will cost more than we can afford.
In the past, when countries come up against the inevitable "We need this but can't afford it" problems, they just go conquer another country and ravage it's resources. Now that we don't have the stomach for that, it seems we have no real solution other than dig the ditch of "progress" deeper and cross fingers.
fullmetalfan720
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 11 (100%)
[quote name='willardhaven']Our money will be so worthless soon that some of you guys will be begging for government health care.[/QUOTE]
Yup. Unfortunately, when that time comes, there won't be a federal government to bail you out.
[quote name='tivo']^^ what's making our money worthless?
answer- government spending and programs that create a loss; they'd be out of business if they weren't able to print money[/QUOTE]
Not so much. It's mainly the mentality of "too big to fail," and government handing trillions to their friends on Wall Street. We can't keep doing this. You can't just keep printing money, and not expect the dollar to collapse. With all of these damn bailouts, that's exactly what is going to happen. Not programs running at a loss.
Yup. Unfortunately, when that time comes, there won't be a federal government to bail you out.
[quote name='tivo']^^ what's making our money worthless?
answer- government spending and programs that create a loss; they'd be out of business if they weren't able to print money[/QUOTE]
Not so much. It's mainly the mentality of "too big to fail," and government handing trillions to their friends on Wall Street. We can't keep doing this. You can't just keep printing money, and not expect the dollar to collapse. With all of these damn bailouts, that's exactly what is going to happen. Not programs running at a loss.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']that makes sense. for every 50k surgery there are surgeries that only cost a few hundred. surgeries can be considered things like draining a bruised knee & removing a wart.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but surgeries that small aren't the type of thing we are going to spend a lot money on with preventative care. Ya know?
It's the heart diseases and cancers.
And to assume, like whoever did, that for every 1,000 people we will spend only $5000 on surgeries for one of them is nuts considering our obesity levels.
Yeah but surgeries that small aren't the type of thing we are going to spend a lot money on with preventative care. Ya know?
It's the heart diseases and cancers.
And to assume, like whoever did, that for every 1,000 people we will spend only $5000 on surgeries for one of them is nuts considering our obesity levels.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'd love to work in a shirt factory that's government subsidized.
---
It sounds like meaningful reform will cost more than we can afford.
In the past, when countries come up against the inevitable "We need this but can't afford it" problems, they just go conquer another country and ravage it's resources. Now that we don't have the stomach for that, it seems we have no real solution other than dig the ditch of "progress" deeper and cross fingers.[/QUOTE]
We have enough farmland to produce food for the entire country. We can manufacture things in a clean, sustainable manner. This will create research, science, manufacturing, financial and all sorts of jobs. The first step is to throw all the multinational corporations out of D.C. Don't get me wrong, I am all for international trade, just not allowing companies to be bigger than most nations.
---
It sounds like meaningful reform will cost more than we can afford.
In the past, when countries come up against the inevitable "We need this but can't afford it" problems, they just go conquer another country and ravage it's resources. Now that we don't have the stomach for that, it seems we have no real solution other than dig the ditch of "progress" deeper and cross fingers.[/QUOTE]
We have enough farmland to produce food for the entire country. We can manufacture things in a clean, sustainable manner. This will create research, science, manufacturing, financial and all sorts of jobs. The first step is to throw all the multinational corporations out of D.C. Don't get me wrong, I am all for international trade, just not allowing companies to be bigger than most nations.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='HowStern']Where in the do you get the statistic that only one out of 1,000 people will need surgery? And where do you go to get $5000 surgery!? Gastric-bypass surgery has an average list price of $35,552 and for some reason skyrockets to $59,500 in the south.
Obviously some surgeries are cheaper than others but to assume $5000 is the average cost is pushing it. Maybe in India.
Preventive care is no magic bullet but it sure is a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
It was a made-up example, I made that clear. Sorry you have trouble reading.
It's easy to just say "it's a step in the right direction" without actually looking at the facts, which say otherwise (I'm talking about cost alone here).
do you get the statistic that only one out of 1,000 people will need surgery? And where do you go to get $5000 surgery!? Gastric-bypass surgery has an average list price of $35,552 and for some reason skyrockets to $59,500 in the south.Obviously some surgeries are cheaper than others but to assume $5000 is the average cost is pushing it. Maybe in India.
Preventive care is no magic bullet but it sure is a step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]
It was a made-up example, I made that clear. Sorry you have trouble reading.
It's easy to just say "it's a step in the right direction" without actually looking at the facts, which say otherwise (I'm talking about cost alone here).
tivo
CAGiversary!
^^
looking at the site + its resources + their resources, I came to the equation used to estimate the "number of deaths resulting from uninsurance" and it pointed to 3 different studies that found that uninsurance increases mortality by around 25% btw ages 25-65. However, I couldn't find the duration of time without insurance to be classified as uninsured. It looks to be around 8.25% (greater than a year uninsured), or 25% (greater than 6 months), or 33% (greater than 1 month) of all 262 million Americans under 65 would be classified as uninsured, thus throwing equation into very complex ranges as they split up the data based on age, morality rate, uninsurance rate,etc. so its pretty wishy-washy math to get the 22,000 death/yr but if the order of magnitudes is correct, around ten thousand excess deaths a yr. adds up to serious $$ in GDP losses, even if they are typically blue collared workers in low quality industries.
so, good point msut77.
however, looking at purely the economics (since I'm ok with a few extra deaths each year *cough* *dovinch*cough*), around X% of medicaid (X% of $330 billion in 2005) adding up to $X MILLION DOLLARS are spent on administering said medicaid. expanding medicaid from ~50 million to ~300 million people to pick up the ~47 million uninsured (and reduce excess deaths) will definitely cause HUGE losses (I estimate at least $100 million a year when considering eliminating Medicare as well) if massive efficiencies aren't in place in government administration costs.
^^ that's wrong. administration costs are way higher than that. I haven't found exact numbers though. Here's something else though on "How are providers paid by medicaid"
from:http://www.nami.org/NAMI-Medicaid_Facts.pdf
so in the above example, hospitals take a 4% hit from every medicaid case they perform (I assume, I haven't read anything about copay). Other providers aren't paid in full as well. Can someone make sense of this for me? how does this system work? Do the hospitals just put up with it. Does it come out of physcian's salaries or past on to other patients. I mean, the other 96% of medicaid is paid by tax payers but this just seems like crooked dealings coming from the government to make healthcare providers put up with it.
looking at the site + its resources + their resources, I came to the equation used to estimate the "number of deaths resulting from uninsurance" and it pointed to 3 different studies that found that uninsurance increases mortality by around 25% btw ages 25-65. However, I couldn't find the duration of time without insurance to be classified as uninsured. It looks to be around 8.25% (greater than a year uninsured), or 25% (greater than 6 months), or 33% (greater than 1 month) of all 262 million Americans under 65 would be classified as uninsured, thus throwing equation into very complex ranges as they split up the data based on age, morality rate, uninsurance rate,etc. so its pretty wishy-washy math to get the 22,000 death/yr but if the order of magnitudes is correct, around ten thousand excess deaths a yr. adds up to serious $$ in GDP losses, even if they are typically blue collared workers in low quality industries.
so, good point msut77.
^^ that's wrong. administration costs are way higher than that. I haven't found exact numbers though. Here's something else though on "How are providers paid by medicaid"
from:http://www.nami.org/NAMI-Medicaid_Facts.pdf
so in the above example, hospitals take a 4% hit from every medicaid case they perform (I assume, I haven't read anything about copay). Other providers aren't paid in full as well. Can someone make sense of this for me? how does this system work? Do the hospitals just put up with it. Does it come out of physcian's salaries or past on to other patients. I mean, the other 96% of medicaid is paid by tax payers but this just seems like crooked dealings coming from the government to make healthcare providers put up with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']however, looking at purely the economics (since I'm ok with a few extra deaths each year *cough* *dovinch*cough*), around 3% of medicaid (3% of $330 billion in 2005) adding up to $90 MILLION DOLLARS are spent on administering said medicaid. expanding medicaid from ~50 million to ~300 million people to pick up the ~47 million uninsured (and reduce excess deaths) will definitely cause HUGE losses (I estimate at least $100 million a year when considering eliminating Medicare as well) if massive efficiencies aren't in place in government administration costs.[/QUOTE]
The only insurance with no administrative overhead is no insurance.
The only insurance with no administrative overhead is no insurance.
bread's done