Absolutely V!
The question is never asked why auto insurance, et al, is not as expensive as government mandated health insurance.
Imagine what would happen if the gov’t forced employers to offer their employees auto insurance.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Absolutely V!
The question is never asked why auto insurance, et al, is not as expensive as government mandated health insurance.
Imagine what would happen if the gov’t forced employers to offer their employees auto insurance.[/quote]
I know, Let companies Underwrite Individuals. Do you smoke, do you eat fast food every day, do you ski or snowboard, do you ride motocross. There are things that increase the risk of the company and they could underwrite these and rate people based not on how much they can afford to pay, but based on how much they are likley to cost. Then, if you wanted to pay less health insurance, you adopt behaviors and practices which will reduce your risk. Things like going to urgent care over every sniffle would actually start to get costly to people as thier policies started getting jacked up every renewal.
If you go to your yearly physical (which as an insurer of an individual, my company would make mandatory) if your doctor finds out you are 100Lbs overweight, guess what fatty, I’m jackinhg your rate up. Now if you want that rate to go down, you lose the flab, and go back to your doctor. You don’t even have to wait a whole year, if you get down to an acceptable weight in 6 months, I’ll lower your rate as of your doctor visit.
This isn’t rocket science, it’s insurance, lets actually treat it like insurance instead of whatever the hell it is now. I just recently went on my wifes insurance, I was not asked any lifestyle questions that the company could use to asses the likleyhood that I would need a hospital visit soon. Nothing. It’s retarded.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
Is it too much to ask that the Insurance Providers (who do not actually provide any care, but just take in and distribute money) don’t skim 30% off the top and deny care to people? There’s no reason a CEO of an insurance company should be making 100’s of millions of dollars for being a middle man. They are not adding value to our society.
I’d like to see anti-trust legislation introduced to the health insurance industry, and then maybe we’d get some competition, open up the ability to buy insurance from other states too. Actually have competition.
US health CARE is the best. US health INSURANCE has problems. [/quote]
The problem with US health insurance IS… Dun Dun Dun… Government interference.
V[/quote]
Could you elaborate, please?
[/quote]
The free market didn’t just decide to not let competition, or to give huge breaks to employer based healthcare vs personalized healthcare. The governemnt pulls the strings, sets the playing field so to speak. If they removed some of the rules which seem to favor the rich, I think competition would drive prices down, and people could buy and afford health insurance just like they buy a homeowners policy, a car insurance policy or a life insurance policy.
V[/quote]
I agree that the current system seems to favor the already huge companies. I am not familiar enough with the current mandates to weigh in on that. Any resource where you obtained your info?
I guess my personal outlook is just that I don’t feel that Health Care should be a corporate for profit industry. Sure we should pay our doctors very well, and with the money currently going to insurance companies, we could pay the actual providers a lot more. Weather it be the government, health care professionals (blue cross in its original form), or what ever, I’d just like to see the profits come out of the insurance game for health care. People shouldn’t be getting rich by essentially gambling that someone won’t get sick.
Can anyone support or elaborate on this: Weren’t most hospitals run by non profits such as churches and doctors orgs at some point in the past? How and why did we move away from that?
V- I like your idea of making it more like auto insurance, I can get a policy that has what I need, and what I can afford. Many options, and my employer is out of the mix.
thanks for the reply.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
Its a difficult subject to tackle and I dont know enough…
but can someone tell me what makes socializing health care so inefficient? Would it mean less proffessional health care providers? Wouldn’t it guarantee that everyone (and not those well-off like Brock Lesnar) get the best health care possible? (which may be less than now, but at least everyone will get it)[/quote]
Supply of almost everything is limited. A few things, such as air to breathe, are not limited. But those are the exceptions.
Medicine is a hard profession to be in. It takes many years of schooling, and years of internship and residency at low pay and, often, horrific hours. And once actually a licensed physician, it’s not a bed of roses then either for most.
It is also not so easy for nurses and many others in health professions.
They would not choose to do it at low pay. For low pay, other career choices are more attractive. It takes quite significant pay for people to choose the sacrifices involved in medicine.
Even at current pay levels, MANY doctors are choosing to get out of it.
Supply of medical services is limited. This is not some phenomenal, amazing, or odd fact: it’s the norm for any sort of service, actually.
In some cases the supply can readily easily meet any amount people are likely to demand, but usually this is not the case.
Now, how does the situation of limited supply wind up in fact supplying pretty well to meet needs?
Let’s say for example that the situation is that the gasoline supply in the US is only 2/3 what it usually is.
Perhaps (I don’t know) you believe that the government should fix the cost per gallon at whatever the rate going into the thing might have been: say, $2.75 per gallon.
Since people want say 1.5 million gallons of gasoline per unit time at $2.75/gal – we know this because this is what they were buying at this price – what happens when there are only 1 million units available per same unit time?
Who gets left out of their desired gasoline? Who gets the gasoline?
Answer: it becomes a matter of WAITING. Perhaps if you want gas you must get in line for about 6-12 hours. Some people won’t do this: these people are the ones who don’t get the missing 500,000 gallons. Those who will wait, do get.
This was done back in the 70s. It really sucked.
But that is one way to match supply and demand. The product or service goes to those who WAIT the longest.
British health care is like this as well.
Another way is price.
Supposedly, back during the hurricanes of about 3 years ago the US gasoline supply did drop by about 1/3.
Price limits or rationing coupons were NOT used. The price simply went up to the point where now, at that price, only one million gallons of gasoline per unit time were demanded (whereas at the previous price, 1.5 million gallons were demanded.)
It is a dream to think that there will be a large supply of medical services available without a lot being paid by SOMEONE, whether the person served, his insurance company, or the taxpayer.
Lower the total amount paid, and the amount of services will be less.
If price is not allowed to lower the amount demanded to the supply available, then enduring the longest wait time will be the deciding factor.
A doctor friend served his residency in Puerto Rico, which has socialized medicine (regardless of being a US Commonwealth.) There, it was considered entertainment for the family or a group of friends to spend all evening in the ER waiting room: it was a hobby of many people. As one example of what went on, pregnant women demanded frequent sonograms just so they could have the picture, which cost them either nothing or $5 (I forget which.)
What is my point here?
When price is made artificially low, the quantity demanded becomes quite high. This actually has considerable application to the health care problems presently faced but this post is too long already.
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
I guess my personal outlook is just that I don’t feel that Health Care should be a corporate for profit industry.
[/quote]
Did you know there are nonprofit hospitals?
But these only exist because there is a healthy and prosperous “health care industry” in the first place.
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
If some guy has a suspected aneurysm, he’s going to be bumped up in line and will likely get an MRI the same day.
[/quote]
He will LIKELY get an MRI the same day? That’s not a chance I want to take with an aneurysm. I’ve hurt my back squatting in the morning and had an MRI by noon.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
I guess my personal outlook is just that I don’t feel that Health Care should be a corporate for profit industry.
[/quote]
Did you know there are nonprofit hospitals?
But these only exist because there is a healthy and prosperous “health care industry” in the first place.[/quote]
Yes, I do.
I actually asked if it wasn’t the case that in the past MOST hospitals were run by non profits (Moslty church orginizations). But I’m too young to know, and haven’t had time to investigate. In this case the Non-profits would have been around prior to the “healthy and prosperous” industry of today. Someone around since the 40’s or 50’s may be able to enlighten me. . .
Upon doing some research, it appears that non-profit hospitals were the original form of the modern hospital as we know it. For-profit appeared later, during the late 20th century, catering more towards the insured, and offering more elective, rehabilitation and specialized medicine. The non-profits cater more towards acute care and the destitute.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, to say the non-profits only exist because of the for profit hospitals is not quite accurate. They may STILL be around due to the for-profit, but their creation precedes the for-profit hospital model.
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
Upon doing some research, it appears that non-profit hospitals were the original form of the modern hospital as we know it. For-profit appeared later, during the late 20th century, catering more towards the insured, and offering more elective, rehabilitation and specialized medicine. The non-profits cater more towards acute care and the destitute.
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS, to say the non-profits only exist because of the for profit hospitals is not quite accurate. They may STILL be around due to the for-profit, but their creation precedes the for-profit hospital model.[/quote]
Even still, where did those medical care professionals come from?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
but can someone tell me what makes socializing health care so inefficient? [/quote]
the short of it is this:
Socialism tries to replace a market that bases prices on supply and demand with mandates that eliminate prices. Without free floating market prices producers do not know how to efficiently meet demand and eventually scarce goods become much more scarce – including decent medical care providers.[/quote]
There’s already no functioning market in healthcare though. And never has been.[/quote]
lol orly?
Are you telling me I cannot go into a drug store and buy medicine whenever I need it?
Are you telling me I cannot go see my doctor whenever I am sick or hurt?
Are you telling me I cannot call an ambulance and have it show up at my house in 2 minutes?
Are you telling me I will have to wait 6 months for cancer treatment?
The market works just fine though yes I agree the government is trying to circumvent it and give us socialism.[/quote]
LoL REALLY.
Do you think the cost of any of those goods or services is based on “the market”? Do you think supply and demand are in play at all? Can you price shop when you call an ambulance? Do you think supply/demand has anything to do with what your doctor charges your insurance company for your visit? Or what your insurance company reimburses him/her?
That’s what a market would be my friend. What you seem to be talking about being able to get healthcare vs. not being able to get healthcare, not the way in which you get it.
The government already sets the price for pretty much everything in the industry, they set the price your doc gets paid by the insurance company, they set the price the pharmacy will get reimbursed for your meds. Has nothing to do with a functioning market. The insurance company is just there… not doing anything, and definitively not given us competitive market driven prices.
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
V- I like your idea of making it more like auto insurance, I can get a policy that has what I need, and what I can afford. Many options, and my employer is out of the mix.
thanks for the reply.
[/quote]
The current system IS ALREADY LIKE THAT!
You can choose to pay less monthly for a higher deductible, and chance that you will not use the doctor much…If you have MAJOR issues, then you are out of pocket for 3-4k before benefits kick in.
OR
You can pay a higher monthly premium and less of a deductible like 500 dollars for something MAJOR.
Nobody has to accept employer medical product offerings. In most cases employer programs offered are cheaper than individual plans when the company is large. The costs go up with smaller companies plans, so then select individual plans.
There are higher cost benefit rich plans that have benefits for maternity if you are young and plan on kids, others don’t cover maternity.
The big problem is that people are too stupid or embarrassed to actually try and understand what’s available.
I’m embarrassed to say that I really do not know much about the health care bill. Can someone link me to a source that lists the details (pros/cons) in a relatively unbiased manner?
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
Is it too much to ask that the Insurance Providers (who do not actually provide any care, but just take in and distribute money) don’t skim 30% off the top and deny care to people? There’s no reason a CEO of an insurance company should be making 100’s of millions of dollars for being a middle man. They are not adding value to our society.
I’d like to see anti-trust legislation introduced to the health insurance industry, and then maybe we’d get some competition, open up the ability to buy insurance from other states too. Actually have competition.
US health CARE is the best. US health INSURANCE has problems. [/quote]
Yes, they need to de-regulate. Welcome to the conversation.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
but can someone tell me what makes socializing health care so inefficient? [/quote]
the short of it is this:
Socialism tries to replace a market that bases prices on supply and demand with mandates that eliminate prices. Without free floating market prices producers do not know how to efficiently meet demand and eventually scarce goods become much more scarce – including decent medical care providers.[/quote]
There’s already no functioning market in healthcare though. And never has been.[/quote]
lol orly?
Are you telling me I cannot go into a drug store and buy medicine whenever I need it?
Are you telling me I cannot go see my doctor whenever I am sick or hurt?
Are you telling me I cannot call an ambulance and have it show up at my house in 2 minutes?
Are you telling me I will have to wait 6 months for cancer treatment?
The market works just fine though yes I agree the government is trying to circumvent it and give us socialism.[/quote]
LoL REALLY.
Do you think the cost of any of those goods or services is based on “the market”? Do you think supply and demand are in play at all? Can you price shop when you call an ambulance? Do you think supply/demand has anything to do with what your doctor charges your insurance company for your visit? Or what your insurance company reimburses him/her?
That’s what a market would be my friend. What you seem to be talking about being able to get healthcare vs. not being able to get healthcare, not the way in which you get it.
The government already sets the price for pretty much everything in the industry, they set the price your doc gets paid by the insurance company, they set the price the pharmacy will get reimbursed for your meds. Has nothing to do with a functioning market. The insurance company is just there… not doing anything, and definitively not given us competitive market driven prices.
[/quote]
So what? The fact of the matter is that these things exist because of the market. What you describe is the result of government intervention.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. Your leaders included.
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]The Monarch wrote:
Is it too much to ask that the Insurance Providers (who do not actually provide any care, but just take in and distribute money) don’t skim 30% off the top and deny care to people? There’s no reason a CEO of an insurance company should be making 100’s of millions of dollars for being a middle man. They are not adding value to our society.
I’d like to see anti-trust legislation introduced to the health insurance industry, and then maybe we’d get some competition, open up the ability to buy insurance from other states too. Actually have competition.
US health CARE is the best. US health INSURANCE has problems. [/quote]
The problem with US health insurance IS… Dun Dun Dun… Government interference.
V[/quote]
Could you elaborate, please?
[/quote]
The free market didn’t just decide to not let competition, or to give huge breaks to employer based healthcare vs personalized healthcare. The governemnt pulls the strings, sets the playing field so to speak. If they removed some of the rules which seem to favor the rich, I think competition would drive prices down, and people could buy and afford health insurance just like they buy a homeowners policy, a car insurance policy or a life insurance policy.
V[/quote]
I agree that the current system seems to favor the already huge companies. I am not familiar enough with the current mandates to weigh in on that. Any resource where you obtained your info?
I guess my personal outlook is just that I don’t feel that Health Care should be a corporate for profit industry. Sure we should pay our doctors very well, and with the money currently going to insurance companies, we could pay the actual providers a lot more. Weather it be the government, health care professionals (blue cross in its original form), or what ever, I’d just like to see the profits come out of the insurance game for health care. People shouldn’t be getting rich by essentially gambling that someone won’t get sick.
Can anyone support or elaborate on this: Weren’t most hospitals run by non profits such as churches and doctors orgs at some point in the past? How and why did we move away from that?
V- I like your idea of making it more like auto insurance, I can get a policy that has what I need, and what I can afford. Many options, and my employer is out of the mix.
thanks for the reply.
[/quote]
There are still hospitals ran by The Church, however the reason why there are not as many is because, guess what. The hospitals ran like a business do better.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
we have better doctors because we have better medical schools, not because of capitalism. [/quote]
[quote]JEATON wrote:
But we have better medical schools because we have capitalism.[/quote]
Both of you are wrong, I’m afraid. “We” don’t have better doctors, but worse ones.
Market forces play a minor role in any industry as heavily regulated and corporatized as health care.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
we have better doctors because we have better medical schools, not because of capitalism. [/quote]
[quote]JEATON wrote:
But we have better medical schools because we have capitalism.[/quote]
Both of you are wrong, I’m afraid. “We” don’t have better doctors, but worse ones.
Market forces play a minor role in any industry as heavily regulated and corporatized as health care.[/quote]
Worse? Compared to what? And real numbers. No some socialist organizations spin job.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Worse? Compared to what? And real numbers. No some socialist organizations spin job.[/quote]
Worse compared to a time when the healthcare system was less hamstrung by regulation.
Both of you made statements that were grounded in the belief that medical service has improved, which you attributed to different causes.
So I stepped in to inform you that your initial premise was wrong. Medicine has not improved, medical schools are not better than they were before. Doctors, by and large, are nitwits today. In the past, more of them were self-taught and thus, knew something other than how to prescribe the latest addictive drugs.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Worse? Compared to what? And real numbers. No some socialist organizations spin job.[/quote]
Worse compared to a time when the healthcare system was less hamstrung by regulation.
Both of you made statements that were grounded in the belief that medical service has improved, which you attributed to different causes.
So I stepped in to inform you that your initial premise was wrong. Medicine has not improved, medical schools are not better than they were before. Doctors, by and large, are nitwits today. In the past, more of them were self-taught and thus, knew something other than how to prescribe the latest addictive drugs.[/quote]
No.
Our context was not a “before” or “after” scenario. It was an “a” or “b” scenario, as in American Doctors are better or worse than Canadian, with a sub-context of socialized medicine vs. non socialized medicine.
You are arguing a totally different topic.