|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Mar 30, 2012, 5:59 AM
Post #26 of 77
(952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388
|
j_ung wrote: guangzhou wrote: curt wrote: guangzhou wrote: flesh wrote: There are many variables between countries, this is fact, so why not test it on a smaller scale and go from there? I would support a small population test like you recommend no problem. Did you both fail Econ 101 or do you both just not understand how insurance works? The only way to minimize individual costs is to have a single large and inclusive pool of insured people. Curt Another words, 99 healthy people who avoid bad health habits paying to medicate 1 person who isn't. I'm sorry, but are you saying my wife's pre-existing conditions are the result of bad health habits?
No, what I am saying is I understand how insurance works. More healthy people have to buy in than unhealthy.
I'm on prescription meds too, I know it's not cheap. Sure am glad I get to choose where I buy my meds from and had a choice on the med instead of taking what ever the contractor sold the government. (Only three choices, but my choice and my research to decide)
National health care isn't the answer, not at the Federal Level at least.
The Federal Government is already Bloated enough. They can keep the budget under control now, how will this help. This is just another giant Federal Financial mess waiting to happen.
Personally, I don't think the Federal Government should be providing this service. I really believe it will just make the medical companies, the drug companies, and all the other richer.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Mar 30, 2012, 6:27 AM
Post #27 of 77
(944 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8571
|
Well, the budget went from balanced and paying down the deficit to spiraling out of control under the control of the very same people who tell us that a government can't be trusted to balance a budget, so maybe its one of those self-fulfilling prophecy things.
It is my belief that one of government's roles is to provide those services that we, the people, deem vital that cannot be provided both profitably and ethically. There is no doubt in my mind that health insurance falls under that descriptor, since, to adhere to federal laws regarding publicly owned companies, insurance companies must avoid paying out wherever possible lest they endanger their profits.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 30, 2012, 7:46 AM
Post #28 of 77
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
guangzhou wrote: curt wrote: guangzhou wrote: flesh wrote: There are many variables between countries, this is fact, so why not test it on a smaller scale and go from there? I would support a small population test like you recommend no problem. Did you both fail Econ 101 or do you both just not understand how insurance works? The only way to minimize individual costs is to have a single large and inclusive pool of insured people. Curt Another words, 99 healthy people who avoid bad health habits paying to medicate 1 person who isn't.
Yes. And what's wrong with that? In our society people without cars pay for the interstate system. People who don't vote pay for elections. In the private market people who don't get into car accidents pay for those who do. People who don't eat cheese pay for the labor to stock that section of the store.
If you want to structure a society where you only pay for the things that you directly benefit from then we better do away with large corporations and create some sort of bizarre tax structure where an individual is allowed to itemize the end use of their contributions.
The only insurance scheme that makes any sort of financial sense is one that includes a large replenishing pool of people who don't immediately partake. Arguing for any alternative is preposterous, there is just no other way to structure the damn thing.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 30, 2012, 7:48 AM
Post #29 of 77
(938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
guangzhou wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: As you mentioned, you're opening a can of worms if you give congress the power and set the precedent to force individual's to buy anything. What's next? Congress has already forced people to buy things. An example: OSHA regulations require companies to enter into private contracts for safety equipment. And we all know that, according to the GOP, corporations are people. . Doesn't require those private companies to buy those safety product from the Federal Government.
What does that have to do with the affordable care act?
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Mar 30, 2012, 9:00 AM
Post #30 of 77
(929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25311
|
guangzhou wrote: curt wrote: guangzhou wrote: flesh wrote: There are many variables between countries, this is fact, so why not test it on a smaller scale and go from there? I would support a small population test like you recommend no problem. Did you both fail Econ 101 or do you both just not understand how insurance works? The only way to minimize individual costs is to have a single large and inclusive pool of insured people. Curt Another words, 99 healthy people who avoid bad health habits paying to medicate 1 person who isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Mar 30, 2012, 9:05 AM
Post #31 of 77
(924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2773
|
j_ung wrote: If the GOP succeeds in eliminating every part of this bill, especially those regarding pre-existing conditions and my access to PCIP* if I need it, I will never forgive them. I will never even consider voting for a Republican ever again.
I don't get this part. They are doing everything in their power to screw you and your family over. Why would you forgive them if they fail?
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Mar 30, 2012, 9:15 AM
Post #32 of 77
(916 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8571
|
I think you misread Jay's comment: if the GOP manages to kill Obamacare, he'll never forgive the GOP.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 30, 2012, 9:20 AM
Post #33 of 77
(912 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
guangzhou wrote: National health care isn't the answer, not at the Federal Level at least.
It may not be perfect, but there is absolutely no doubt that single-payer government healthcare systems deliver superior healthcare at a lower cost. This has been proven in many countries and if you disagree, you either simply have your head in the sand--or since this outcome seemingly conflicts with your particular ideology, you simply ignore the facts.
In reply to: The Federal Government is already Bloated enough. They can keep the budget under control now, how will this help. This is just another giant Federal Financial mess waiting to happen.
Then why does the OMB say that the ACA act will actually reduce our federal budget deficit over the next 10 years?
In reply to: Personally, I don't think the Federal Government should be providing this service. I really believe it will just make the medical companies, the drug companies, and all the other richer.
One of the main advantages of a government healthcare system is that some control can be exerted over insurance companies, drug companies and other healthcare system providers. I am stunned that you have things so absolutely backwards.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Mar 30, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #34 of 77
(910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
Agreed. Health care reform is vital. What's with all the emotion? Close to elections?
Actually, the new law requires 80% be spent on care. As a businessperson, 20% actually looks to me like a small amount of money to run the system.
No, I don't for one minute believe that anybody's overhead runs single digits, regardless of what's been touted for existing government programs.
Nobody has to be "tricked" into paying for insurance. It's a really valuable service that makes both me and society better off. It's worth paying somebody to run the system. A bank won't lend you money for a house unless you've got insurance on it and with good reason. You can't drive without it and that's for your protection and the protection of others.
IMHO, if you take profit out of the equation, you'll wind up significantly worse off. It's people's motivation to improve their circumstances (profit) that's gotten those of us in the developed world to the most bountiful society that's ever existed on the planet. It's also, in the past 100 years or so, given medics an incredible range of options for treating things that killled people in ugly ways in the 19th century.
It's given us ipads and 4G wireless. It's given us chemotherapy, MRI's and hip replacements. Why would I want to take profit out of the system? I think it's paving on the road to a better future, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. Our republic is founded on it.
We have the failure of the centrally planned economies to point to as a result of a society without profit. We innovated, they didn't. They failed.
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Mar 30, 2012, 9:32 AM
Post #35 of 77
(908 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2773
|
petsfed wrote: I think you misread Jay's comment: if the GOP manages to kill Obamacare, he'll never forgive the GOP.
That's exactly how I read it. The point is that they are doing everything in their power to kill it. I don't see why the forgiveness part would have anything to do with whether they succeed or not. If somebody tries to shoot you, you wouldn't forgive them simply because the bullet missed and didn't do any damage.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 30, 2012, 10:25 AM
Post #36 of 77
(902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
rmsusa wrote: Agreed. Health care reform is vital. What's with all the emotion? Close to elections? Actually, the new law requires 80% be spent on care. As a businessperson, 20% actually looks to me like a small amount of money to run the system. No, I don't for one minute believe that anybody's overhead runs single digits, regardless of what's been touted for existing government programs.
Denial of facts don't change them. Medicare has about a 3% overhead rate. That you don't "believe it" is completely irrelevant.
rmusa wrote: IMHO, if you take profit out of the equation, you'll wind up significantly worse off. It's people's motivation to improve their circumstances (profit) that's gotten those of us in the developed world to the most bountiful society that's ever existed on the planet.
It's pretty clear that doesn't apply to healthcare. Normally, people like to "get what they pay for." Why do you like paying twice as much for healthcare as those in other countries that have better care?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 30, 2012, 11:55 AM
Post #37 of 77
(882 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18681
|
guangzhou wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: As you mentioned, you're opening a can of worms if you give congress the power and set the precedent to force individual's to buy anything. What's next? Congress has already forced people to buy things. An example: OSHA regulations require companies to enter into private contracts for safety equipment. And we all know that, according to the GOP, corporations are people. . Doesn't require those private companies to buy those safety product from the Federal Government.
Neither does the healthcare act. Besides, I was being facetious... like I said in the very next sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_feelgood
Mar 30, 2012, 11:59 AM
Post #38 of 77
(880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25311
|
petsfed wrote: I think you misread Jay's comment: if the GOP manages to kill Obamacare, he'll never forgive the GOP.
What I got from the criticism was: why wait for the GOP to kill obamacare to never forgive them? Haven't they already fucked us enough?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Mar 30, 2012, 11:59 AM
Post #39 of 77
(879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18681
|
guangzhou wrote: j_ung wrote: guangzhou wrote: curt wrote: guangzhou wrote: flesh wrote: There are many variables between countries, this is fact, so why not test it on a smaller scale and go from there? I would support a small population test like you recommend no problem. Did you both fail Econ 101 or do you both just not understand how insurance works? The only way to minimize individual costs is to have a single large and inclusive pool of insured people. Curt Another words, 99 healthy people who avoid bad health habits paying to medicate 1 person who isn't. I'm sorry, but are you saying my wife's pre-existing conditions are the result of bad health habits? No, what I am saying is I understand how insurance works. More healthy people have to buy in than unhealthy. I'm on prescription meds too, I know it's not cheap. Sure am glad I get to choose where I buy my meds from and had a choice on the med instead of taking what ever the contractor sold the government. (Only three choices, but my choice and my research to decide) National health care isn't the answer, not at the Federal Level at least. The Federal Government is already Bloated enough. They can keep the budget under control now, how will this help. This is just another giant Federal Financial mess waiting to happen. Personally, I don't think the Federal Government should be providing this service. I really believe it will just make the medical companies, the drug companies, and all the other richer.
Right now it's not clear to me that you understand the law in question. There is no mandate in it to purchase insurance and healthcare from the federal government.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Mar 30, 2012, 1:07 PM
Post #40 of 77
(864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8571
|
NMR techniques were developed at Harvard, and first applied to medical imaging (MRI) in England, again at a university. Just like cryostats and telescopes, while the technology is sold by private companies, the development starts in public or semi-public institutions. Just by the way.
My point was that health insurance can NOT be provided to customers in an ethical fashion if the company wants to make a profit. Put another way, an insurance company can expand its profits by either adding more customers or minimizing the amount it pays out. If that insurance company is publicly traded, it is legally obligated to do as its shareholders will, which typically means maximizing profit. If you're a particularly unscrupulous (or short-sighted) shareholder, it probably looks like insurance companies have stumbled onto one hell of a scam: the customer gives you money, and the only product you willingly return to them is a little laminated card with your logo on it.
Ostensibly the red-tape is to minimize fraud, but since anecdotally, insurance companies never seem to take initiative to verify the claim themselves, I'm not inclined to believe it. As a for instance: about 2 months ago, I had to get a chest x-ray on my doctor's orders. The only x-ray facility available in town was at the hospital, so my doctor wrote up the order and told me that the hospital would not perform the x-ray without the order. I get the x-ray done, my insurance company gets the claim, and promptly denies it. Their explanation: they won't pay for lab work unless it's doctor-ordered. The rule makes sense, sure, but I could not believe that they sent me a letter to tell me this, rather than calling the hospital or my doctor to confirm that the procedure was in fact ordered. Why bother with that, unless they hoped that I'd just pay the bill and leave the company with the money I'd already paid them.
I know, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but still.
From the business owners perspective, underwriting insurance probably seems like a hell of a scam. But for the public good, everybody needs to have insurance, and if everybody does, then the market can't grow anymore and the only way to increase profits is to keep cutting how much is paid out.
(This post was edited by petsfed on Mar 30, 2012, 1:09 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Mar 30, 2012, 1:12 PM
Post #41 of 77
(861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5169
|
One of the reasons that people who have preexisting coverage can't buy insurance is that they know how much medical procedures cost.
Because people with preexisting conditions know how much their medical expenses are, no matter what the cost of coverage, only those people's who's medical costs will be over the insurance premium will ever buy the insurance. So there is no way to run such a plan at anything but a loss.
One might be tempted to say that is what is wrong, on a broader scale with all health insurance, that only those individuals who don't know how much medical costs they are going to spend are going to participate in such a system. At least voluntarily.
Edit: bad fingers bad
X2
(This post was edited by Toast_in_the_Machine on Mar 30, 2012, 1:22 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Mar 30, 2012, 1:42 PM
Post #42 of 77
(849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
rmsusa wrote: IMHO, if you take profit out of the equation, you'll wind up significantly worse off. It's people's motivation to improve their circumstances (profit) that's gotten those of us in the developed world to the most bountiful society that's ever existed on the planet. It's also, in the past 100 years or so, given medics an incredible range of options for treating things that killled people in ugly ways in the 19th century. It's given us ipads and 4G wireless. It's given us chemotherapy, MRI's and hip replacements. Why would I want to take profit out of the system? I think it's paving on the road to a better future, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. Our republic is founded on it. We have the failure of the centrally planned economies to point to as a result of a society without profit. We innovated, they didn't. They failed.
Actually, the profit motive is fairly important for innovation, but profit motive in insurance brings us what? Innovations in insurance technology? Better methods to deny paid-for coverage faster than ever before?
Also, medical and other basic research is largely subsidized anyway. My lab up here has published on ways to improve resolution and reading for video taken with ultrasound machines, and all that was funded by the University of Michigan and produced by grad students making less than 20k a year.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 30, 2012, 1:59 PM
Post #43 of 77
(843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 9673
|
guangzhou wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: As you mentioned, you're opening a can of worms if you give congress the power and set the precedent to force individual's to buy anything. What's next? Congress has already forced people to buy things. An example: OSHA regulations require companies to enter into private contracts for safety equipment. And we all know that, according to the GOP, corporations are people. . Doesn't require those private companies to buy those safety product from the Federal Government.
Wow. Just wow. Okay, I'll explain it in small words:
There is no single payer. No government program. Private insurers. Same as right now.
How can you be part of an argument when you are so ignorant of the facts?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Mar 30, 2012, 2:04 PM
Post #44 of 77
(842 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5169
|
styndall wrote: rmsusa wrote: IMHO, if you take profit out of the equation, you'll wind up significantly worse off. It's people's motivation to improve their circumstances (profit) that's gotten those of us in the developed world to the most bountiful society that's ever existed on the planet. It's also, in the past 100 years or so, given medics an incredible range of options for treating things that killled people in ugly ways in the 19th century. It's given us ipads and 4G wireless. It's given us chemotherapy, MRI's and hip replacements. Why would I want to take profit out of the system? I think it's paving on the road to a better future, and I'm not the only one with that opinion. Our republic is founded on it. We have the failure of the centrally planned economies to point to as a result of a society without profit. We innovated, they didn't. They failed. Actually, the profit motive is fairly important for innovation, but profit motive in insurance brings us what? Innovations in insurance technology? Better methods to deny paid-for coverage faster than ever before? Also, medical and other basic research is largely subsidized anyway. My lab up here has published on ways to improve resolution and reading for video taken with ultrasound machines, and all that was funded by the University of Michigan and produced by grad students making less than 20k a year.
I'm guessing that the U of M didn't fund that research with tuition dollars.
Edir; gud damn gracing situ corrects.
(This post was edited by Toast_in_the_Machine on Mar 30, 2012, 2:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
Mar 30, 2012, 2:25 PM
Post #45 of 77
(836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
cracklover wrote: guangzhou wrote: j_ung wrote: flesh wrote: As you mentioned, you're opening a can of worms if you give congress the power and set the precedent to force individual's to buy anything. What's next? Congress has already forced people to buy things. An example: OSHA regulations require companies to enter into private contracts for safety equipment. And we all know that, according to the GOP, corporations are people. . Doesn't require those private companies to buy those safety product from the Federal Government. [image]http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg[/image] Wow. Just wow. Okay, I'll explain it in small words: There is no single payer. No government program. Private insurers. Same as right now. How can you be part of an argument when you are so ignorant of the facts? GO
Here's a thought...
Why don't we just call anyone who hasn't used their insurance yet "investors" and anyone who partakes in health care "customers". People who lack the common sense to get behind any sort of reform should easily be sated by that little bit of spin.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Mar 30, 2012, 2:35 PM
Post #46 of 77
(831 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2389
|
petsfed wrote: I know, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but still.
That never stopped guangzhou.
So... carry on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rmsusa
Apr 2, 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #49 of 77
(757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2004
Posts: 1017
|
petsfed wrote: NMR techniques were developed at Harvard, and first applied ... development starts in public or semi-public institutions. Just by the way. ... My point was that health insurance can NOT be provided to customers in an ethical fashion... From the business owners perspective, underwriting insurance probably seems like a hell of a scam. But for the public good, everybody needs to have insurance, and if everybody does, then the market can't grow anymore
I'm aware of the origins of those technologies. Apple took a bunch of stuff from Xerox Parc and then BSD Unix after all. When the technologies got into profit making hands (Xerox wasn't good at it), they exploded, and that's a good thing. I'm not saying there's no role for supported research. I was an academic for years.
So I'm not sure how you get to "...can NOT be provided to customers in an ethical fashion if the companby wants to make a profit..." ?? If that's taken to a logical conclusion, it somehow tars all profit makers (businesspeople) with an unethical brush. Perhaps I misunderstand?
Your example is the prime reason that most insurance companies are regulated sort of like public utilities. Their rates are subject to approval. We don't seem to have a problem with guaranteeing our electrical utilities a "reasonable rate of return" on their capital. Why should we have a problem with medical insurance? We just passed the 80/85% rule, after all.
A corporation acts for the benefit of its shareholders, not "as its shareholders will". We have the same tension between voters and management as we do with government. We have the same conflict between short and long term thinking. They're human institutions, subject to human frailties.
IMHO, a company acts to maximize benefit to shareholders by acting to maximize benefit to its customers and other stakeholders. That will guarantee its long-term existence and loyalty of its base. What's more important than avoiding extinction? There are a lot of corporate execs who think that way. Check a few issues of HBR.
As far as profit growth goes. With a regulated return, absolute dollars grow with population, price level and covered applications (among other things). The advent of CAT scans and NMR generated more profits. So does the more widespread use of preventive care and joint replacements. Denying care is definitely not the only way to increase the number of dollars coming in.
I'm not sure that underwriting seems like "a hell of a scam". Ask the property insurers who do coastal property. Look at the Florida market for true dysfunction. For the public good, everybody needs to have clean water as well. We provide it with a mixture of public and private regulated utilities. It seems to function reasonably well. Is medical insurance, when everybody has it, the same kind of "utility"?
We need to move the debate (IMHO) away from good and evil, from left and right, conservative and liberal toward a reasoned consideration of how to achieve the public good we're looking for. Demonizing the people who are currently providing some form of it doesn't help.
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Apr 2, 2012, 3:41 PM
Post #50 of 77
(739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12414
|
cracklover wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:  Are you trying to suggest that the market should not decide? Clearly, if insurance is more expensive for women, that is because the insurance companies have determined that women have more health expenses (probably due to reproductive concerns). Why should the government intervene to force men to pay more to offset the additional cost of women in the system? You liberals, with your concepts of "fairness". Don't you understand that the market has the best solutions to everything, and, if degulated completely, will always solve the problems in the most efficient* manner. GO * The "most efficient manner" being defined as the manner that maximizes short term shareholder profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
