How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Putting a cap on medical treatment costs, which would be no different than putting a cap on malpractice lawsuits, would lower us to a reasonable level.

Which is why I suggested that the way these costs can be controlled is to ban assisted living facilities and ban all extraordinary measures on geriatric patients. How do you think things get price capped? Guess what? That's "FU - you're not good enough to get health care."

Also note that thoughout history, price caps cause shortages of supply. Thus, "FU - it's not that you're not good enough, it's just that you don't have healthcare."

Your claim i that healthcre in the US is rationed by price. You are merely arguing to ration it in a different way.

You're talking about leaving people uncovered for things that you don't believe in .............. there's one problem in that, the your belief thing. Your making other people's choices limited through your beliefs.

I'm suggesting a cap on prices..........

"A survey by a large insurance company showed that prices charged by hospitals vary dramatically. For example, a hysterectomy ranged from $2,200 to $37,000, and a total knee replacement ranged from $3,000 to $119,400."

.........so that knee replace would get capped at fair price, that price being chosen by a panel of doctor's and budget specialists. In this care for instance the knee replacement......if one hospital can charge $3,000 then so can the next.....but through the panel they might decide on a price cap of $15,000. The problem with our current system is that if you're uninsured, like if you have a medical tax-free savings account, the hospital would instantly charge you the higher amount. Like I said..........do you have $119,000 laying around.....not unless you're rich.

What are the healthcare companies gonna start offing doctors to keep the supply down.....I don't think so.

No rationing here........the exact opposite. Everybody gets covered. Right now it's rationed so that you're forced to by insurance on the fear that you might get sick.....so you pay the high premiums or gamble with your financial stability.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

But the thing you didn't read was that only $2,080 of that came from the government........that brings the amount required down to $624 billion.

{{Deleted - the whole thread is rehashed nonsense}}

Yeah...this isn't really moving anywhere. People aren't reading or remembering what was written and just getting worked up for no reason. This shouldn't be an emotional issue. It should just be common sense...........everybody has the right to be healthy, it's not a priviledge for only the wealthy.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[pirana 0]

Just a couple quick adds:

The Friedman essay was a mixed bag. A few good points, but also some errroneous statements and outright false conclusions.

Second, someone mentioned the approxiamte cost per person for coverage of all services, no copays or deductibles, etc at about $300. It would be more than double that, easy. For a full coverage, first dollar, no out-of-pocket plan it would probably be about $800 to $1000 per month per person.

Something that should jump out at everybody is that only a small (proportionately) segment of the population actually incurs that much or more per month in expenses.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

.........so that knee replace would get capped at fair price, that price being chosen by a panel of doctor's and budget specialists. In this care for instance the knee replacement......if one hospital can charge $3,000 then so can the next.....but through the panel they might decide on a price cap of $15,000. The problem with our current system is that if you're uninsured, like if you have a medical tax-free savings account, the hospital would instantly charge you the higher amount. Like I said..........do you have $119,000 laying around.....not unless you're rich.

They have that in place now...it's called "actual and reasonable costs" and is what the insurance pays for a procedure.

Quote

What are the healthcare companies gonna start offing doctors to keep the supply down.....I don't think so.

No rationing here........the exact opposite. Everybody gets covered. Right now it's rationed so that you're forced to by insurance on the fear that you might get sick.....so you pay the high premiums or gamble with your financial stability.

Dude - rationing is ALREADY happening in SHC countries - if you think that it's miraculously not going to happen here, you're being foolish.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yeah...this isn't really moving anywhere. People aren't reading or remembering what was written and just getting worked up for no reason. This shouldn't be an emotional issue. It should just be common sense...........everybody has the right to be healthy, it's not a priviledge for only the wealthy.

cliched nonsense

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

I've been on vacation for a week. A good time and relaxing. What do I do to relax? I think abotu shit like how to control the costs of healthcare in the United States.

Holy cow man, if I didn't know you were a lawyer I would have know it after reading that. Some of the thinking in that rant just boggles the mind.

The system of UHC that you advocate sounds like something the old USSR would come up with, not something we would consider in the USA.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Darius11 12]

Insurance is a necessity as shit happens to all of us.
Car insurance, home insurance, or health insurance. For one the greatest and most powerful countries in the world we have one of the worst insurance/health care issues.

Insurance should not be a business. It should be a not for profit simple as that.
When it is a company trying to make money their only legal obligation is to their stock holders, and the way they make a profit is by not approving claims. Their job is to find a way to screw you as their job is to make maximum profit.

I am all for capitalism however not when it comes to a life necessity like insurance.

Insurance should be taken over by the government or should be a not for profit organization.



Sorry if this has already been mentioned I did not read threw the 5 pages of posts.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Insurance is a necessity as shit happens to all of us.

Or, it's NOT a necessity since shit happens to ALL of us. (If it's all of us, then we all need to deal with it is another argument).

Anyway, it's too much like gambling, and militant anti-bobism is against gambling.

Why not make money off of it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Why not make money off of it?

Because everyone should be able to pay for cancer treatment, not only the rich.
If you are sick money should be the last thing on your mind your maine concern should be how to get healthy.

I hope as a society we value life more then a profit.

I also think most would agree that valuing a profit more then humane life is immoral. At least I hope most agree.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

By making healthcare a right and not a priviledge this wouldn't be an issue.

No, that's backwards. You lose rights when you suffer a communicable disease--you can be quarantined against your will.

By making healthcare a right we'll just pour more good money after bad. The projected costs of our present healthcare obligations are already unmanageable. We cannot afford more, we can only afford less. This means, consequently, that the poor will get the shaft. If it's any consolation, the wealthy will pay more too.

The alternatives are worse.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,466]

>We cannot afford more, we can only afford less.

Provably untrue. We have in fact been getting more and more medical treatment by nearly any standards (money spent, quality of drugs, number of office visits, outcomes of procedures) and have indeed been affording it. I can afford more medical care than I am getting, and that's true of most people I know.

We have more disposable income than most countries in the world. We can afford SUV's, storage units, boats and private airplanes. There are whole stores dedicated to selling boxes, containers and shelves to store all our crap in. The statement "we can't afford any more" makes zero sense.

What would be accurate to say is that "_some_ people can't afford more." Definitely true, and one of the underlying problems being discussed here.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

People aren't reading or remembering what was written and just getting worked up for no reason. This shouldn't be an emotional issue. It should just be common sense...........everybody has the right to be healthy, it's not a priviledge for only the wealthy.

I think people remember what was written. I suggested some rather draconian ways to keep healthcare costs under control, such as limiting end-of-life care, closing borders to limit populations and therefore the diseases they get, etc. Seeing as how end-of-life measures are typically responsible for more than half of a person's lifetime health care outlay, it would seem to make sense that if you want to control a LARGE portion of healthcare costs, you eliminate this spending.

See, when you strt thinking of the "best interests" of a "society," and stop thinking about individuals within, it is CLEARLY in the best interests of "society" that those members who are a "drag" on the society are neutralized.

Take a look at the inventory of top notch military weapons. The F-14 has capabilities that are STILL unmatched, but the cost of maintenance compared to the capabilites of the F/A-18 means that the F-14 gets scrapped. It takes too much money and resources to maintain it.

You don't think that governments look at people this way? Or WILL look at people this way? It will. It will make its decisions about where to direct its money, and it will not be directing its money towards people who don't pay taxes.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

Quote

You don't think that governments look at people this way? Or WILL look at people this way? It will. It will make its decisions about where to direct its money, and it will not be directing its money towards people who don't pay taxes.

Governments assign $ values to human life all the time. The WHO healthcare report does it too. I'm not saying that your idea is feasible, though.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The system of UHC that you advocate sounds like something the old USSR would come up with, not something we would consider in the USA.

Firstly, I do NOT advocate it, with the exception of the requirement that negative studies by drug companies meet sunlight or possibly banning "assisted living facilities."

Secondly, do you mean that the solution that I stated sounds like something that a socialist country would come up with? Wow. That boggles the mind. I never saw that coming. I NEVER would think that a socialist country would screw over those who do not provide the desirable societal benefit - particularly those that suck tax dollars instead of putting more tax dollars into the government.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

The system of UHC that you advocate sounds like something the old USSR would come up with, not something we would consider in the USA.

Firstly, I do NOT advocate it, with the exception of the requirement that negative studies by drug companies meet sunlight or possibly banning "assisted living facilities."

Secondly, do you mean that the solution that I stated sounds like something that a socialist country would come up with? Wow. That boggles the mind. I never saw that coming. I NEVER would think that a socialist country would screw over those who do not provide the desirable societal benefit - particularly those that suck tax dollars instead of putting more tax dollars into the government.

There is a slight difference(read: HUGE difference) between the policies of the former communist USSR and the possibility of a liberal democracy implementing responsible social programs.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[1969912 0]

Ranked 25th by WHO Utopia @ only 14% of your salary!

This happened about a year ago.

Health Care Crisis

The system is funded by contributions from employers and employees, who pay just under 14 percent of their salaries into it. Still, next year, there will be an expected shortfall of $9 Billion.
"There have to be difference sources of revenue. We've basically said the financing basis has to be broadened," said Barbara Marnach, deputy spokesman of the AOK public health plan, one of Germany's largest, which began lobbying hard as politicians took up the health care reform issue seriously in the spring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5409014.stm


Doctor's Strike a Few Months Earlier

Around 70,000 doctors in up to 700 municipal clinics have been involved in the dispute, which is over pay and working conditions. According to the Marburger Bund, a German doctor works on average 60 to 80 hours a week, which is double the number set out in their contract, and these extra hours are often unpaid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5207048.stm

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Just a couple quick adds:

The Friedman essay was a mixed bag. A few good points, but also some errroneous statements and outright false conclusions.

Such as?

Quote

Quote

Second, someone mentioned the approxiamte cost per person for coverage of all services, no copays or deductibles, etc at about $300. It would be more than double that, easy. For a full coverage, first dollar, no out-of-pocket plan it would probably be about $800 to $1000 per month per person.

Something that should jump out at everybody is that only a small (proportionately) segment of the population actually incurs that much or more per month in expenses.

I don't believe that your statement is correct, if one where to follow france's example for instance then it would be $2700 per year per person......which would equal $225 a month.

One study that I read stated that the main problem with the US healthcare was just that the prices were too high, they were overinflated. So lower the cost through regulation and then move on from there.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

.........so that knee replace would get capped at fair price, that price being chosen by a panel of doctor's and budget specialists. In this care for instance the knee replacement......if one hospital can charge $3,000 then so can the next.....but through the panel they might decide on a price cap of $15,000. The problem with our current system is that if you're uninsured, like if you have a medical tax-free savings account, the hospital would instantly charge you the higher amount. Like I said..........do you have $119,000 laying around.....not unless you're rich.

They have that in place now...it's called "actual and reasonable costs" and is what the insurance pays for a procedure.

that's right, the insurance companies have that on their side......so here's the problem. We privatize the whole thing and get rid of insurance according to Bush's plan we'd have tax-free saving accounts to save money for our healthcare...........the problem is that while the insurance companies get that break, your uninsured patient gets charged the high amount.

Quote

Quote

What are the healthcare companies gonna start offing doctors to keep the supply down.....I don't think so.

No rationing here........the exact opposite. Everybody gets covered. Right now it's rationed so that you're forced to by insurance on the fear that you might get sick.....so you pay the high premiums or gamble with your financial stability.

Dude - rationing is ALREADY happening in SHC countries - if you think that it's miraculously not going to happen here, you're being foolish.

We can't control what's happening elsewhere.....but we can control what's happening here. Regulate the prices, bring healthcare down to a reasonable level, and make sure that everyone is covered.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

I've been on vacation for a week. A good time and relaxing. What do I do to relax? I think abotu shit like how to control the costs of healthcare in the United States.

Holy cow man, if I didn't know you were a lawyer I would have know it after reading that. Some of the thinking in that rant just boggles the mind.

The system of UHC that you advocate sounds like something the old USSR would come up with, not something we would consider in the USA.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Dude....you gotta read some stuff before you reply. Read the last couple of pages of posts. We would actually spend half or less than half of what we do now if we were to go down the right path and cover everybody.

Quote

Quote

By making healthcare a right and not a priviledge this wouldn't be an issue.

No, that's backwards. You lose rights when you suffer a communicable disease--you can be quarantined against your will.

By making healthcare a right we'll just pour more good money after bad. The projected costs of our present healthcare obligations are already unmanageable. We cannot afford more, we can only afford less. This means, consequently, that the poor will get the shaft. If it's any consolation, the wealthy will pay more too.

The alternatives are worse.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Bingo......the people that are well off can afford it, but the people that aren't well off can't. Really it boils down to one of two decisions:

1. we cover everybody and act as a society
2. we cover only ourselves and act individually

I think there would be great pride in having a country that everybody is healthy in and acts as a group rather than only worrying about themselves.

Quote

>We cannot afford more, we can only afford less.

Provably untrue. We have in fact been getting more and more medical treatment by nearly any standards (money spent, quality of drugs, number of office visits, outcomes of procedures) and have indeed been affording it. I can afford more medical care than I am getting, and that's true of most people I know.

We have more disposable income than most countries in the world. We can afford SUV's, storage units, boats and private airplanes. There are whole stores dedicated to selling boxes, containers and shelves to store all our crap in. The statement "we can't afford any more" makes zero sense.

What would be accurate to say is that "_some_ people can't afford more." Definitely true, and one of the underlying problems being discussed here.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[1969912 0]

Quote

The Friedman essay was a mixed bag. A few good points, but also some errroneous statements and outright false conclusions.

Maybe he didn't deserve that Nobel Prize for Econonomics


What were the errors?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

People aren't reading or remembering what was written and just getting worked up for no reason. This shouldn't be an emotional issue. It should just be common sense...........everybody has the right to be healthy, it's not a priviledge for only the wealthy.

I think people remember what was written. I suggested some rather draconian ways to keep healthcare costs under control, such as limiting end-of-life care, closing borders to limit populations and therefore the diseases they get, etc. Seeing as how end-of-life measures are typically responsible for more than half of a person's lifetime health care outlay, it would seem to make sense that if you want to control a LARGE portion of healthcare costs, you eliminate this spending.

See, when you strt thinking of the "best interests" of a "society," and stop thinking about individuals within, it is CLEARLY in the best interests of "society" that those members who are a "drag" on the society are neutralized.

Take a look at the inventory of top notch military weapons. The F-14 has capabilities that are STILL unmatched, but the cost of maintenance compared to the capabilites of the F/A-18 means that the F-14 gets scrapped. It takes too much money and resources to maintain it.

You don't think that governments look at people this way? Or WILL look at people this way? It will. It will make its decisions about where to direct its money, and it will not be directing its money towards people who don't pay taxes.

You're missing the importance of balance.......those people that you're talking about cutting off are the people that helped build this country, I think they deserve a little bit more respect than that. You would be better off cutting costs and keeping people covered. By cutting costs in half, you still drop down to 50% and they're still covered, everybody is happy.....you can make the choice to not get resucitated and they can choose to be.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Agreed.

Quote

Quote

You don't think that governments look at people this way? Or WILL look at people this way? It will. It will make its decisions about where to direct its money, and it will not be directing its money towards people who don't pay taxes.

Governments assign $ values to human life all the time. The WHO healthcare report does it too. I'm not saying that your idea is feasible, though.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[billvon 2,466]

>1. we cover everybody and act as a society
>2. we cover only ourselves and act individually

I think we should do both.

Get in a car accident? The care to save your life is covered by the government. The surgery to reconstruct your nose so it's not crooked any more - that's not covered.

Kid has allergies? Emergent care is covered, and he gets some benadryl or claritin. Want an allergy workup done? Not covered. For that you'll need insurance (or you can pay cash as always.)

Liver disease? Basic hospital care is covered. Transplant isn't.

We as a society will not turn away a gravely ill patient because he cannot pay - and that's as it should be IMO. Everyone gets basic care even if they can't afford it. We should do a better job of dealing with paying for such care, such that hospitals/counties/doctors don't go bankrupt trying.

Beyond that, keep it purely capitalistic. Want the latest wonder drug? Need Viagra, or a new nose? Want a new hip joint instead of painkillers? Then get good insurance and/or pay directly.