# Why does healthcare cost so much?



## auditor0007 (Nov 17, 2011)

Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple.  We have found a way to increase life expectancy dramatically during a time when we have done everything else wrong.  

First of all, our infant mortality rate is one of the worst, if not the worst, of all developed countries.  Secondly, while we have reduced the percentage of people who smoke, we actually have more smokers than ever before, because of population increases.  In any city where gangs rule the streets, hospitals see cases of gunshot wounds, beatings, and stabbings, to people who have no insurance, and this isn't a once in a while thing, it's routine.  And last of all, on my list, is the fact that the fat population has doubled, leading to all sorts of costly treatments.  But the bottom line is, that despite all these things, life expectancy has increased by eight to nine years over the last 40 years.  

With all these things considered, you would think that life expectancy would be decreasing, not increasing, but we have seen increases because medical treatment has gotten much better.  We have become very effective at keeping people alive much longer.  The problem is that this all comes at a cost, and someone has to pay for it.  

Let's look at two countries, the United States and Japan.  Japan has the highest life expectancy of any country in the world.  They also spend less on healthcare than most industrialized countries.  In fact, they only spend about 1/3 of what we spend in the US.  So what are some of the contributing factors?

Murder Rate: US rate is five times that of Japan.
Smoking Rate: Japans is double that of the US.  (This is the one area the US has done very well at from a healthcare POV)
Obesity: US rate of Obesity is ten times higher than Japan.  Over 30% in the US versus 3% in Japan.
Infant Mortality: The US Infant Mortality Rate is more than double that of Japan.

These stats give us an interesting glimpse of where we are.  It is interesting that the US reduction in smoking has had little effect on reducing healthcare costs.  This should tell us that obesity is a much bigger problem, and it is.  As the obesity rate has more than doubled over the last 40 years, spending on healthcare has also more than doubled.  Is there a correlation?  Of course there is, but it is a bit more complex than that.  Given that however, the fact is that a very large percentage of our increase in healthcare spending has come from the simple fact that America has become way too fat.  

The bottom line is that we can reduce our healthcare costs dramatically by reducing our weight.  Unfortunately this is not going to be an easy task, especially with a large percentage of the populations screaming that nobody is going to tell them what they can and cannot eat.  God forbid Michele Obama suggest that people eat healthier.  Of course, it's not all just about diet.  Honestly it is just as much about exercise, and it starts with our kids.  They no longer get enough.

When I was a kid, back in the 70's, we didn't have video games, computers, cell phones, or much of anything.  Television was pretty basic and everyone watched a few of their favorite shows each week.  So what did we do back then?  We went outside and played.  We played baseball, basketball, football, smear the queer, you name it.  We were outside riding our bikes, we went to the public pool during the summer and listened to Rose Royce singing Car Wash.  When we came home for dinner, we smelled terrible from sweating all day long.  We were active.  What we did not do was sit in front of the TV playing some stupid X-Box game eating potato chips and drinking soda for eight hours per day.

So how do we change all this and get kids back into shape?  Honestly, there is only one answer that I can see that is workable, because parents aren't going to do it, and we can't take away all the video games and things that keep kids from becoming active.  What it means is that we need to invest more money into our schools, make the school days longer, and use the extra time on physical activities.  In other words, force the kids to be active for a couple of hours per day.  The simple fact is that if kids don't become fat while they are kids, they will be and are much less likely to become fat as adults.  Rather than concentrating on how to help people lose all the excess weight, we need to concentrate on not letting people become fat to begin with.  But I know, it's such a communist idea.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2011)

For the Health Care System, we need Universal Health Care, not the horrid for profit system of today. 

For our children, we need to do whatever it takes to get them physically active. That has mental benefits as well as physcial. Just living longer is not a good goal. Living longer actively is. One cannot do that as an obese slug.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 18, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> For the Health Care System, we need Universal Health Care, not the horrid for profit system of today.
> 
> For our children, we need to do whatever it takes to get them physically active. That has mental benefits as well as physcial. Just living longer is not a good goal. Living longer actively is. One cannot do that as an obese slug.



Do you trust the government to approve medical procedures and pay for them?   Why woud you think that when every expert and health care official tells you differently?  At least in for profit health care, you can get some.  Once the government decides health care isn't worth it for you, based on the cost benefit analysis, you don't get any at all.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2011)

My biggest problem with gov't health care is our gov't.   I'm not concerned about how the british did it or the french did it.  They won't be running our system.

Before we allow the gov't to take over our healthcare, can someone tell me one thing our federal government does well and efficiently?   Ok, besides the military (we can bomb folks VERY well).


----------



## editec (Nov 18, 2011)

> *Why does healthcare cost so much? *


 
*1. because it is better than it was..much better...but ALSO more expensive than it was, too. *

*2. And so (see # 1) people live long enough to get really expensive chronic diseases associated with advancing age. Diseases that drag on and on sucking out 50 cents of every HC dollar spent on the LAST YEAR  **OF LIFE.*

*This really isn't rocket science, folks.*

*It's not a conspiracy, it's not a rip off, its an organic shift in the cost of HC compared to most other things we purchase.*


----------



## lizzie (Nov 18, 2011)

There are several reasons why health care is so expensive.

Americans overall have this belief that they are owed healthcare regardless of their own input into the equation.

HMO legislation passed in the 70's took the free market aspect away from the issue by forcing insurance companies to all offer comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage which was common prior to that time.

Americans are getting fatter and less productive (lazy).

Americans have created a culture of self-obsession and denial of reality.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2011)

lizzie said:


> There are several reasons why health care is so expensive.
> 
> Americans overall have this belief that they are owed healthcare regardless of their own input into the equation.
> 
> ...



If we would promote preventive medicine as much as we have promoted Viagra, costs would be much lower.


----------



## lizzie (Nov 18, 2011)

WinterBorn said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > There are several reasons why health care is so expensive.
> ...


 
American culture doesn't favor that. People here want to be self-destructive then have the taxpayer pay for their healthcare. Even your Viagra example shows what I'm talking about. Americans are self-obsessed, self-indulgent, and shallow as a general rule.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 18, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple.  We have found a way to increase life expectancy dramatically during a time when we have done everything else wrong.
> 
> First of all, our infant mortality rate is one of the worst, if not the worst, of all developed countries.  Secondly, while we have reduced the percentage of people who smoke, we actually have more smokers than ever before, because of population increases.  In any city where gangs rule the streets, hospitals see cases of gunshot wounds, beatings, and stabbings, to people who have no insurance, and this isn't a once in a while thing, it's routine.  And last of all, on my list, is the fact that the fat population has doubled, leading to all sorts of costly treatments.  But the bottom line is, that despite all these things, life expectancy has increased by eight to nine years over the last 40 years.
> 
> ...



Thoughtful post.  

I would add the increased cost of technology.  A CT scan costs $900 dollars and they are done like clockwork.  

"Defensive medicine" plays a role too, but not nearly as much (per the research) as people claim.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 18, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > For the Health Care System, we need Universal Health Care, not the horrid for profit system of today.
> ...



Who do you think pays for Medicaid and Medicare?


----------



## deaddogseye (Nov 18, 2011)

for all the faults in the health care system - and it could always use improvement, what cant?- people are living longer and longer and more healthy lives. It cant be all that bad. Now in fairness I am one of the people with good health care (which I pay for totally out of my own earnings) and would no doubt feel differently if that were not the case.  

And any government run system MUST involve some form of rationing, it is inevitable. In a sense the current system does as well but at least there is more room for individual choice - far more - than there would be in a government run system where there really would be none.


----------



## Synthaholic (Nov 18, 2011)

I don't understand why the price of MRI machines have not gone down in the way that DVD players, VHS players, Flat Screen TVs, etc. have gone down, after an initially high price.

It seems as though they have been kept artificially high.


----------



## old navy (Nov 18, 2011)

WinterBorn said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > There are several reasons why health care is so expensive.
> ...



The data shows that preventive medicine programs do not lower the cost of health care.


----------



## spectrumc01 (Nov 18, 2011)

The problems with the medical system are numerous.  The first major problem that increases health care costs is the pharmasuetical companies unwillingness to provide affordable medication.  They site R&D costs as the reason for the high cost, but in reality the pharmasuetical companies profits are in the billions of dollars and that is after the R&D costs.  They are already immune to lawsuits, so the reason for high prescription drug costs must be they want to make as much money as they can at the expense of society as a whole.
Insurance is the next reason health care costs are so high.  Hospitals know that insurance companies will pay out without question any bill under $10,000 or some such number.  So when a hospital bills the insurance company it trys to get as close to the number as possible.  $30.00 for two tylenol is the example of this practice.  
Doctors and health care providers defrauding the system to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year is yet another reason.  Read the paper and stories just like this are all over the place.  It isn't uninsured people defrauding the system it is the health care people defrauding the health care system.
As for rationiong health care, it is already being rationed, but it is financial rationing that is taking place.  You can only get health care that you can afford.  The rich are scared that those who can't afford it to begin with may be required to get care that might take away from them.  The rich don't go to the walk-in clinics, they go right to specialists.  The rest of us go to the walk-in, because the health care plans we have only cover one to two visits per year.
The list of reasons go on and on.  Socialized medicine is the only way to go.  Yes, I know that the rich from other countries come here for their care.  This is because those of privilage never have to wait for anything.  When I start seeing people from Europe who make 25K a year coming to the US for their medical care then I will rethink my position on this.
Our Health care system is riddled with fraud and corruption.  Here in Michigan Blue cross and Blue shield are being sued for anti-trust.  So to believe that it is all at the feet of the uninsured is just false and misleading, and done on purpose.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 18, 2011)

Making sure the rich die is one of the perks!   I see.

Although that means you too.  You just don't see it.


----------



## lizzie (Nov 18, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Making sure the rich die is one of the perks! I see.
> 
> Although that means you too. You just don't see it.


 
Yep- all the idiots who hate the rich are going to be SOL when the rich die off.


----------



## spectrumc01 (Nov 18, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Making sure the rich die is one of the perks! I see.
> ...



At the rate they are going they might not die off, but be killed off instead.  Their appathy towards their fellow man is quiet astounding to behold, but not unexpected.  Some of the rich understand and accept their responsibility of privilage, and some don't.  Those that don't jepordize those that do.  Revolutionaries tend not to draw distinctions.  The French didn't, and neither did the Cubans.  The Bolsheviks didn't fare to well either.  Just saying....


----------



## lizzie (Nov 18, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


 
Who do the poor think is going to fund all their programs when they kill the goose that laid the golden egg?


----------



## mskafka (Nov 18, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> I don't understand why the price of MRI machines have not gone down in the way that DVD players, VHS players, Flat Screen TVs, etc. have gone down, after an initially high price.
> 
> It seems as though they have been kept artificially high.



Got one of tho$$$$$$$$$$e, last night.  With every click, vibration, and whir...I swear, I could hear an old-fashioned cash register tallying.  I cannot WAIT to see the bill.  And that's even with in$urance.  

To reiterate what others have said, there are many reasons for the cost of healthcare in this country.  Having concern for the US government's ability to distribute health insurance, is a valid concern.  If we can't trust congress not to cheat while trading stocks, or for the SEC to notice when someone's running a billion-dollar ponzi scheme , health insurance would be a huge leap of faith and a gamble.  If we knew that eveyone in government had integrity and honesty, maybe...  But even as much of a bleeding heart as I am where social issues are concerned, there would have to be a HUGE overturn of the current system before I would support such a legislation.


----------



## old navy (Nov 18, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> The problems with the medical system are numerous.  The first major problem that increases health care costs is the pharmasuetical companies unwillingness to provide affordable medication.  They site R&D costs as the reason for the high cost, but in reality the pharmasuetical companies profits are in the billions of dollars and that is after the R&D costs.  They are already immune to lawsuits, so the reason for high prescription drug costs must be they want to make as much money as they can at the expense of society as a whole.



R&D might have been the reason for high drug costs in the past, but in 1990 something, congress passed a law that allowed BigPharma to advertise. Since then, the cost of drug advertising has taken over as the leading cause of drugs that cost too much.

That in turn causes another uptick in costs. The patient sees the ad that tells them that they need the latest and greatest new drug and they go to their physician asking for it. The doctor, practicing defensive medicine and also wanting to please the patient, gives in and orders the medication.


----------



## Alan Stallion (Nov 18, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> First of all, our infant mortality rate is one of the worst, if not the worst, of all developed countries.





> Let's look at two countries, the United States and Japan.  Japan has the highest life expectancy of any country in the world.  They also spend less on healthcare than most industrialized countries.  In fact, they only spend about 1/3 of what we spend in the US.  So what are some of the contributing factors?
> 
> Murder Rate: US rate is five times that of Japan.
> Smoking Rate: Japans is double that of the US.  (This is the one area the US has done very well at from a healthcare POV)
> ...



Keep in mind a key difference between the United States and Japan is that Japan is a very homogeneous nation, whereas the U.S. is a large immigrant nation (legal or illegal), so we acquire people who are from nations where life expectancy isn't as high and may carry over diseases or habits that lead to diseases (such as smoking). Plus, if they come here illegally, they may be less likely to make health care visits for fear of deportation, so health will decrease and disease will spread due to neglect of care.

On top of that, doctors and hospitals have to take out insurance on themselves for protection from lawsuits. They'll often administer unneeded tests just to cover themselves, but even that won't secure themselves from being sued. The costs of this liability of course get passed onto the general public. While there surely are legitimate lawsuits, many I believe are fraudulant. We need tort reform to help reduce the costs from lawsuit lotteries.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 18, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So what happened with all those revolutions?

The revolutionaries were all killed by their fellow revolutionaries.  And, all the revolutions failed to deliver.  All of them created more misery for the ones they were supposed to help.

Just sayin'.  Just how surprised do you think Robespierre was when he was marched to the guilliontine by his fellow Jacobins?  

As far as revolutions go, maybe the Chinese got it right.   Mao started with the peasants instead of ending with the peasants.


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 18, 2011)

WinterBorn said:


> My biggest problem with gov't health care is our gov't.   I'm not concerned about how the british did it or the french did it.  They won't be running our system.
> 
> Before we allow the gov't to take over our healthcare, can someone tell me one thing our federal government does well and efficiently?   Ok, besides the military (we can bomb folks VERY well).


The Veteran's Administration health care is the best, and it's totally a socialist program. Doctors, nurses, everyone and everything paid by the government.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 18, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > My biggest problem with gov't health care is our gov't.   I'm not concerned about how the british did it or the french did it.  They won't be running our system.
> ...



I stand corrected, and you are right about the quality of care.  At least now.  High quality care at a VA facility is a relatively recent development.  And their overwhelming majority of their client base is healthy, physically fit young people.


----------



## Alan Stallion (Nov 18, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> The Veteran's Administration health care is the best, and it's totally a socialist program. Doctors, nurses, everyone and everything paid by the government.



It should be the best. The entire taxpayer base pays for a small percentage of the population for their service to the nation. Forcing the entire population under the same system would be unsustainable as well as anti-choice.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 18, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple.



yes it is simple to a conservative: because  liberals made competition illegal! 

Imagine what computers would cost if liberals made competition illegal in that industry too. It is simple but nevertheless a liberal will lack the IQ to understand it.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 18, 2011)

Why does healthcare cost so much?
Because of insurance of one type or another.
If everyone had to pay from their own pocket it would be much cheaper.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 18, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Why does healthcare cost so much?
> Because of insurance of one type or another.
> If everyone had to pay from their own pocket it would be much cheaper.



sorry wrong!! I pay $345 a year for auto insurance. Insurance is not necessarily expensive especially when it gives the companys' 
the leverage to bargain with providers. Over a liberals head?


----------



## Brutus (Nov 18, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> The Veteran's Administration health care is the best, and it's totally a socialist program. Doctors, nurses, everyone and everything paid by the government.



of course thats absurd! How can it be the best if its socialist with no competition. Socialism means low quality, stupid, and/or inefficient. Over a liberals head?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 18, 2011)

Health care in this country has become expensive for the same reason college tuition has gotten expensive and the housing market ran up before it came crashing down.

Government subsidization and "cadillac" health insurance policies.  We've taken free market forces out of health care.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 18, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple.  We have found a way to increase life expectancy dramatically during a time when we have done everything else wrong.
> 
> First of all, our infant mortality rate is one of the worst, if not the worst, of all developed countries.  Secondly, while we have reduced the percentage of people who smoke, we actually have more smokers than ever before, because of population increases.  In any city where gangs rule the streets, hospitals see cases of gunshot wounds, beatings, and stabbings, to people who have no insurance, and this isn't a once in a while thing, it's routine.  And last of all, on my list, is the fact that the fat population has doubled, leading to all sorts of costly treatments.  But the bottom line is, that despite all these things, life expectancy has increased by eight to nine years over the last 40 years.
> 
> ...


You know it and I know it, obesity in the US is far more of a problem than any other health problem.
It's just easier to to attack smokers with special taxes and try and pretend that that will fix the problem.  They are an easy minority to pick on (most tobacco taxes are levied under the ruse of providing health care to others).
It's currently a common practice to charge tobacco users more for health insurance, but I don't know of any insurance companies charging a premium to obese people.

As far as the whole lifestyle for kids thing........
My kids didn't have cable TV nor gaming systems when growing up because I wouldn't pay for it.  They are now healthy young adults without any weight problems or the associated health problems that fat people have.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 18, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> I don't understand why the price of MRI machines have not gone down in the way that DVD players, VHS players, Flat Screen TVs, etc. have gone down, after an initially high price.
> 
> It seems as though they have been kept artificially high.



Last I looked, 80 million people aren't buying MRI machines, but they are buying DVD players, VHS players (not these anymore), Flat Screen TVs, etc.  Hey, they buy cars also, I don't see the price of cars dropping.


----------



## Political Junky (Nov 18, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > The Veteran's Administration health care is the best, and it's totally a socialist program. Doctors, nurses, everyone and everything paid by the government.
> ...


VA Health Care System Rated Highly in Government Report - Medicare and More


A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the VA  (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs) does a much better job controlling health care costs than the private sector delivery system which is used by Medicare and all private sector insurance plans.

*The CBO estimates that the VA&#8217;s health care cost per enrollee grew by only 1.7 % from 1999 to 2005, which amounts to 0.3% annually. Medicare&#8217;s costs grew 29.4 % per capita over that same period, or 4.4 % per year.  In the private sector insurance market (employer and individual plans) premiums increased by more than 70% during this period.
*
The CBO report also says that* the VA scores better than the private sector when it comes to patient/customer satisfaction.* In 2005, t*he VA achieved a satisfaction score of 83 out of 100 for inpatient care and 80 out of 100 for outpatient care.  The same survey showed private-sector providers of got 73 for inpatient care and 75 for outpatient care.*
<more>


----------



## Brutus (Nov 18, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> I don't understand why the price of MRI machines have not gone down in the way that DVD players, VHS players, Flat Screen TVs, etc. have gone down, after an initially high price.
> 
> It seems as though they have been kept artificially high.



the cost has gone way way done with a variety of machines available the world over. In Japan for example the cost of an MRI is about $200Liberals have made competition illegal here. Imagine the cost of a blue ray if liberals did that in that industry too?


----------



## spectrumc01 (Nov 19, 2011)

Alan Stallion said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > The Veteran's Administration health care is the best, and it's totally a socialist program. Doctors, nurses, everyone and everything paid by the government.
> ...



The system is not anti-choice because no one makes me go to the V.A. hopital.  I go because I earned it through my service. Everyone is entitled to it also, they just have to put the time in and serve their country.  I can go to any doctor I choose anywhere in the world I just have to pay for it out of my own pocket.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 19, 2011)

Alan Stallion said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > The Veteran's Administration health care is the best, and it's totally a socialist program. Doctors, nurses, everyone and everything paid by the government.
> ...



Why would it be unsustainable? The VHA's per-enrollee costs, even adjusted for the patient mix (i.e. the average level of care needed by its patients), have grown substantially more slowly than costs for folks enrolled in public or private insurance that sends them to private health care facilities. The VHA isn't just among the highest quality (and highest rated on patient satisfaction) areas of our health system, it's also among the cheapest, on a per person basis.



Brutus said:


> the cost has gone way way done with a variety of machines available the world over. In Japan for example the cost of an MRI is about $200Liberals have made competition illegal here. Imagine the cost of a blue ray if liberals did that in that industry too?



Japan sets prices biennially for all medical services in a negotiation between the government and the health sector.



> *FRONTLINE:* So you're saying the government has the power to determine these prices, what they're going to pay. Don't the providers, hospitals, have power in pricing?
> 
> *Naoki Ikegami, chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Keio University School of Medicine:* They can certainly negotiate, but after making the first-step decision I was saying -- prices are going to be decreased by 3 percent -- then everything must be fitted within that. So certain prices may go up, certain prices may go down, but in general, the final results should be that the overall budget should be as set by the first step, a 3 percent reduction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alan Stallion (Nov 19, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> Alan Stallion said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



You misunderstood what I said. I wasn't talking about the veterans. The "anti-choice" part is if the ENTIRE U.S POPULATION was forced under a one-size-fits-all system that some people advocate.


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple. ...



That's a very good question. And while I don't think it's "very" simple, it's not terribly complicated. Unfortunately your post is trying to answer a different question entirely.

All the issues you cite pertain to increased health care consumption, and ignore the price inflation that is pinching the average American. It's a fine argument to justify draconian state controls over our personal habits, but it has nothing to do with spiraling inflation in the health care industry.

Price inflation is a market problem. Prices are going up because we've minimized the market incentives that would keep them down. To put it another way, doctors and health care providers don't offer lower prices because there's not much demand for them to do so. Patients are either "covered", in which case they don't care how much it the individual services cost, or they're not - and they can't afford to play at all.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 19, 2011)

old navy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > lizzie said:
> ...



That depends on your definition of "preventative medicine".  You are likely referencing the work of Dartmouth's Institute of Health Policy which is one of the leaders in this area.  

Preventative Medicine as it applies to costly and un-necessary screens and tests to "look for disease" costs more money and leads to poor patient outcomes.  The simple question of "why order a test if you don't have an idea of what you are going to do with the results?" should be asked.  If you order a CT chest in an asymptomatic smoker to look for lung cancer and find an incidental mass in the lungs that leads to a full work up and biopsy to discover it's an old ball of fungus, you have cost the system money and subjected the patient to un-necessary suffering.  

However, simple prevention such as annual physicals and lifestyle modification absolutely save money.  

Both sides are guilty of this silly canard.   When the USJPTF recommended against annual mammograms due to the poor outcomes, people went absolutely batshit crazy.  It was likened to death panels.

Guess what?  Mammograms are "preventative medicine".  So either you live and die by the data or simply join the masses that selectively choose the healthcare cause du joir because it fits their political opinion.  

Essay - McCain and Obama Health Plans Promote Myth of Prevention as Cost Cutter - NYTimes.com



> The term preventive medicine no longer means what it used to: keeping people well by promoting healthy habits, like exercising, eating a balanced diet and not smoking. To their credit, both candidates ardently support that approach.
> 
> But the medical model for prevention has become less about health promotion and more about early diagnosis. Both candidates appear to have bought into it: Mr. Obama encourages annual checkups and screening, Mr. McCain early testing and screening.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 19, 2011)

dblack said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple. ...
> ...



This isn't simply an "open market" issue.  

As long as there is a law (which I support) that everyone in this country is treated regardless of cost, you can't apply open market parameters to it.  

You can thank that God of the Free Market, Ronald Reagan, for that.

"EMTALA".


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> This isn't simply an "open market" issue.



Sure, there's more to it than just market dynamics, but isn't it pretty insane to just ignore them? How can we even begin to seriously analyze health care inflation without looking at that side of things?



> As long as there is a law (which I support) that everyone in this country is treated regardless of cost, you can't apply open market parameters to it.
> 
> You can thank that God of the Free Market, Ronald Reagan, for that.
> 
> "EMTALA".



I thank Reagan for very little actually, least of all nonsense like EMTALA. That said, the free-rider effect supposedly brought on by EMTALA (and the like) has been proven, repeatedly, to have a minimal effect on the health care prices. The numbers don't add up and it simply doesn't account for the spiraling prices in health care. 

The distorted market incentives, however do. When you take away a consumer's incentive to seek lower prices, especially for a service most of us need, especially when, in most cases, a third party is footing the bill - *that can't not produce inflation*. Ignoring this is utterly foolish.

We can address this by recognizing that we are over-insured, and remove the policies that have promoted the practice. We all need to be paying for our own health care as much as we can possible manage, and minimize the reliance on insurance schemes (whether they're private or publicly financed). Not only does this make more sense for individual consumers (most of us will pay much more in premiums than we receive in services) but it restores a strong incentive for the health care industry to provide us efficient services and low prices.


----------



## geauxtohell (Nov 19, 2011)

dblack said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't simply an "open market" issue.
> ...



As long as there is no "right to refuse service", it's not a free market issue.   Maybe it seems that way to you and others who pay for their insurance, but that ignores the cost of providing health care to people who have no ability to pay for that.

I don't mind it.  Aside from the simple moral argument, that systems allows for the medical education of young physicians and nurses that will later go on to care for others.

Whoever, you have to look at the whole picture.  If you have data that says EMTALA doesn't drive up costs, I'd be happy to see it.


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> As long as there is no "right to refuse service", it's not a free market issue. Maybe it seems that way to you and others who pay for their insurance, but that ignores the cost of providing health care to people who have no ability to pay for that.
> 
> I don't mind it.  Aside from the simple moral argument, that systems allows for the medical education of young physicians and nurses that will later go on to care for others.
> 
> Whoever, you have to look at the whole picture.  If you have data that says EMTALA doesn't drive up costs, I'd be happy to see it.



From the article:

Is Uncompensated Care a Problem?


> Nationwide, the cost of unpaid care for hospitals, which includes charity care as well as money that could not be collected from patients, was around $36 billion in 2008.



Which amounts to less than three percent of health care spending. A while back I had a link to the original (non-partisan) study that produced those numbers. I'll see if I can dig it up. 

I'm not saying it's not a problem, but it's relevance is vastly overstated. In any case, the free-rider issue can be resolved without chaining us to insurance companies as virtual slaves.

But would you care to address my point? How can the erosion of sane market incentives not produce inflation? Surely you've experienced it yourself - or know those who have. For those of us without insurance, healthcare is so expensive we do our best to avoid it altogether (meaning we skip necessary preventative care). When we do have insurance (of the usually, low-deductible, group variety) we simply don't care how much the actual health care costs. It's actually surprising that health care prices aren't rising even faster than they already are.


----------



## uscitizen (Nov 19, 2011)

dblack said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > As long as there is no "right to refuse service", it's not a free market issue. Maybe it seems that way to you and others who pay for their insurance, but that ignores the cost of providing health care to people who have no ability to pay for that.
> ...



so mandated free treatment and malpractice payouts combined cost around 6% of the total cost?


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> so mandated free treatment and malpractice payouts combined cost around 6% of the total cost?



Something like that, I suppose. Though better stats would be helpful for the discussion.

My point isn't that we should ignore these factors, but I don't think they come close to accounting for the persistent, accelerating rise in health care prices. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't disregard the skewed market incentives either, and that's mostly what we're doing. Right now, doctors can virtually ignore the only people with a real motivation to seek lower prices (the uninsured), because most of their customers are on the insurance dole. We need to look at how that's occurred and how we can reverse it. When _most_ patients are paying _most_ of their medical bills themselves doctor's will have a powerful economic incentive to provide more efficient, lower-cost health care. That incentive is currently all but non-existent.

Unfortunately, most attempts at health care reform are pushing for the opposite of this prescription - more insurance, producing more unmotivated health care consumers.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 19, 2011)

Brutus said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Why does healthcare cost so much?
> ...



Wrong, my ass.  He's exactly right.  What the hell does your auto insurance have to do with anything?

There are no market forces to bring down the cost of health care because most of the time a third party is footing the bulk of the bill. Nobody cares if their monthly prescription costs $150 to fill if they are only paying a $10 co-pay.  Since the insurance is picking up 90% of the tab there is no reason for the manufacture to reduce the cost of their medications.  Thus, they charge a ton of money, insurance companies cover it, but after so long the insurance companies have to raise their premiums to keep up with the rising cost.

The way to bring down the cost of health care is for the consumer to be hit in the pocket more than they currently are.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

dblack said:


> How can the erosion of sane market incentives not produce inflation? .



So true, the liberals made interstate competition illegal in health insurance so there is no incentive whatsoever to lower costs. 

Its perfectly insane and perfectly liberal.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Wrong, my ass.  He's exactly right.  What the hell does your auto insurance have to do with anything?



he said insurance, in general,   was wasteful and expensive. I explained that my auto insurance was not wasteful and not expensive. The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is that liberals made competition illegal in health insurance but not in auto insurance.

Catching on now?


----------



## rdean (Nov 19, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > For the Health Care System, we need Universal Health Care, not the horrid for profit system of today.
> ...



Pure, undiluted bull shit.  The VA is considered among the best care in the world.  Sure, you can find an occasional story about mold or something, but you have to look very hard.  And this is an organization that spends 94 cents of every dollar on the patient.  And, under Clinton, they created a data base that keeps track of the effectiveness of medicine and medical procedures.

AND they don't pay CEO payouts of over a hundred million dollars that have to be skimmed off hundreds of thousands of policies.

Republicans say I misrepresent them.  They misrepresent reason.  They have swallowed their own swill for so long, they believe it, without reservation.  

I don't understand those who hate government so much they have lost the ability to reason.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

rdean said:


> I don't understand those who hate government so much they have lost the ability to reason.



actually hating government  was the most reasonable thing our Founders did. Why do you think we became the most successful country in human history?

See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ?


----------



## dblack (Nov 19, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, my ass.  He's exactly right.  What the hell does your auto insurance have to do with anything?
> ...



That's not the main difference. The main difference is in how we use it. Auto insurance is for _accidents_. It covers you in the _unlikely_ event of a wreck that results in significant damage to your car. In contrast, we use health insurance to finance our regular health care expenses. Used that way, it's incredibly wasteful and expensive. It would be like auto "insurance" that paid for your gasoline, oil-changes, new tires every three years, etc, etc... Which would, inevitably, be expensive and wasteful as a service. 

Try again, Brutus.


----------



## Brutus (Nov 19, 2011)

dblack said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



too stupid!! Why would auto insurance be expensive if the companys operated in a Republican competitive environment with lots of buying power and so had to have the lowest prices in the country just to survive. 

See why we say the liberal will have a low IQ?


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 20, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > For the Health Care System, we need Universal Health Care, not the horrid for profit system of today.
> ...



We hear this argument all the time, but it isn't valid, plain and simple.  The vast majority of people receive most of their healthcare in their retirement years, when they are on Medicare, so the government is already making the decision for most.  Most Americans support and want to keep Medicare, because they realize, despite a few issues, it is a great program.  If everyone was so against the government making medical decisions, then everyone would be against Medicare, don't you think?  Last of all, if you are not yet on Medicare and depend on private insurance, then you are leaving the same decisions to those in a for profit enterprise.  When push comes to shove, the for profit will cut costs wherever they can, and they do.  There are no easy answers, but this argument is pretty much worthless in the overall discussion of our healthcare system.


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 20, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> The problems with the medical system are numerous.  The first major problem that increases health care costs is the pharmasuetical companies unwillingness to provide affordable medication.  They site R&D costs as the reason for the high cost, but in reality the pharmasuetical companies profits are in the billions of dollars and that is after the R&D costs.  They are already immune to lawsuits, so the reason for high prescription drug costs must be they want to make as much money as they can at the expense of society as a whole.
> Insurance is the next reason health care costs are so high.  Hospitals know that insurance companies will pay out without question any bill under $10,000 or some such number.  So when a hospital bills the insurance company it trys to get as close to the number as possible.  $30.00 for two tylenol is the example of this practice.
> Doctors and health care providers defrauding the system to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year is yet another reason.  Read the paper and stories just like this are all over the place.  It isn't uninsured people defrauding the system it is the health care people defrauding the health care system.
> As for rationiong health care, it is already being rationed, but it is financial rationing that is taking place.  You can only get health care that you can afford.  The rich are scared that those who can't afford it to begin with may be required to get care that might take away from them.  The rich don't go to the walk-in clinics, they go right to specialists.  The rest of us go to the walk-in, because the health care plans we have only cover one to two visits per year.
> ...



The biggest problem with pharmaceutical companies is the fact that we subsidize the cost of drugs to just about every other country in the world.  They all put caps on how much the pharmy companies can charge and so they take what they can get and make us in the US pay the difference.  There is a very simple solution to this.  We should pass legislation stating they can only charge a certain percentage more than the average price among all other countries.  If they want to charge more, then force the other countries to pay more.  Quit making Americans pay for the rest of the world.


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 20, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Making sure the rich die is one of the perks! I see.
> ...



So long as there is a middle class, the rich will remain rich.  If the middle class disappears, then so will the rich.  By destroying the middle class, the rich are writing their own epitaph.


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 20, 2011)

old navy said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> > The problems with the medical system are numerous.  The first major problem that increases health care costs is the pharmasuetical companies unwillingness to provide affordable medication.  They site R&D costs as the reason for the high cost, but in reality the pharmasuetical companies profits are in the billions of dollars and that is after the R&D costs.  They are already immune to lawsuits, so the reason for high prescription drug costs must be they want to make as much money as they can at the expense of society as a whole.
> ...



And when that medication brings on unwanted side effects, instead of discontinuing use of the drug, another drug is prescribed to offset the unwanted side effects.  Next thing you know, you have a patient who didn't need that first drug to begin with who is now taking eight different drugs, all to offset side effects created by the use of one drug after another.  But as long as it is "for profit", then it must be good for everyone.


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 20, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why the price of MRI machines have not gone down in the way that DVD players, VHS players, Flat Screen TVs, etc. have gone down, after an initially high price.
> ...



For all the liberal bashing you do, you just gave us an example of how an MRI costs so much less in Japan in a healthcare system where the government negotiates the price of every piece of equipment and every single medical procedure.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 20, 2011)

Has anyone seen the vast vast VAST amounts of regulations that are required now?

When I was a kid, the only people in doc ofc's and hospitals were docs, nurses, cleaning crew and kitchen staff.

The government regs got so vast that you now need a college degree to now how to work them.  The nurses just gave up as it took all their time.

Government interfearance has fucked it up again.


----------



## editec (Nov 20, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> lizzie said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


 
FYI:

A little perspective is in order here as it regards the *Cuban revolution*. 

That pig, *Batista, killed over 20,000 Cuban civilians* maintaining his authoritarian regime.

*Fidel's* post revolutionary Cuban goverment *executed hundreds of Batista's cohorts,* _not thousands, not tens of thousands_, but _hundreds of former members of the criminal regime_ that Batista controlled. Those people were tired and executed for their part in the slaughter of Cubans civilians while BATISTA was in power. They died _and they deserved to die_, too, folks. 

Now thousands of Cubans fled the island when Fidel took over, that is very true. 

Mostly those who fled were former players in the Batista regime, wealthy land owners whose lands were nationalized, and many of the more affluent upper and middle class left, _and they were allowed to leave, too._

But there was no wholesale slaughter by the Cuban communists, which is, apparently the myth that so many Americans believe about that revolution. 

Incidently the post revolutionary government of the FRENCH revolution didn't kill all that many people, either. 

Remember, ARTISOS like Lafayette weren't killed, they were REVERED AND HONORED by the French revolutionaries

I've read estimates that about 6,000 artisos, functionaries and other tools of the ancient regime died at the FR. revolutionaries hands.

It was the post revolutionary governments squabbling for control where the slaughters happened in France after the revolution.


----------



## spectrumc01 (Nov 20, 2011)

editec said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> > lizzie said:
> ...



The point is that when people, good or bad, have nothing left to loose and the feeling of hopelessness sets in.  The attitude is, "I can sit here and die quietly or I can revolt and possibly die trying to better my lot."  How does one get to that point?  If we keep doing what we're doing we'll see it first hand.  The point wasn't that those revolutions were good, but that there was a revolution and why it happened.


----------



## barb019 (Nov 20, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



I worked in the medical field working with health insurance contracts and I can guarantee you that a $150 prescription where the consumer pays $10 that the insurance pays 90% is completely wrong.  Health insurance contract a fee schedule for each provider of services and they pay if your lucky a third of what is billed to them and the provider (Doctor, pharmacy, etc) has to write off the rest minus your contracted portion of the bill.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 20, 2011)

Brutus said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, my ass.  He's exactly right.  What the hell does your auto insurance have to do with anything?
> ...



That has absolutely nothing to do with why auto insurance is less expensive than health insurance.  Does your auto insurance cover every new tire, every oil change, every tune up you get?  No.  If it did then you'd be paying a hell of a lot more than your $350 a year.  

Most people's health insurance covers every single doctor visit, sniffle, and sneeze.  It's not really insurance as much as it is a health plan.  Throw in the third party payment that I already discussed and there is your reason for the vast difference in cost between the two.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 20, 2011)

barb019 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



That was just a random number I threw out.  What I said is still true.


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 20, 2011)

barb019 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...



That is how the entire medical industry works.  If you go to the hospital, the hospital bills you $50,000.  Then the insurance pays them $20,000 and that is considered payment in full.  This is why nobody can figure out how much anything really costs.  The whole thing is a bloody mess.


----------



## auditor0007 (Nov 20, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Brutus said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



We could solve a lot of our problems and reduce costs substantially if health insurance went back to being major medical and didn't cover every little thing.


----------



## old navy (Nov 20, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I am defining preventive medicine as how it does not lower health care costs on a national health policy level, which is the subject of the original post.

Individually, preventive medicine programs lower costs and prevent disease. If one stops smoking, they can expect to have less physician visits that relate to respiratory and ENT complaints.

As a whole, the U.S. populace are not positively affected by the numerous and expensive preventive medicine programs due to the large number of people that continue to smoke, make poor food choices, abuse drugs and alcohol, get pregnant too early, and the list goes on.


----------



## PeterAmbelang (Nov 20, 2011)

Its actually rather simple. There is no effective competition in the health care delivery system. The prices are indirectly controlled by Medicare payments. What is needed is to create an incentive so that efficient health care providers are more economically successful than inefficient ones. To put it another way, if there is no incentive to be efficient, no one will be efficient. The standard becomes the least efficient doctor or health care provider will set the standard for the service.
For example, a federal study determined that the health care industry costs for new technology run directly contrary to that for almost all other industries. When new technology is generated in almost all industries other than health care, the costs go down. In health care the costs go up. The author of the study wanted to know why this occurred. The answer is not that anyone is trying to take advantage of the health care industry. It is that the only way to make a profit in the health care industry is to increase the charges for the service. In order to qualify for such an increase, the provider must have a reason for increasing the costs. New technology provides that reason.
In contrast to the health care industry, other industries see a significant reduction in costs when new technology becomes available. Since industries other than health care do not have to comply with price limitations, logically the other industries would increase the costs of new technology to cover the development costs and get a greater profit. However, industries which produce new technology have a secret that the health care industry can not take advantage of. It is that they make more money by making a smaller profit on a large quantity of sales, rather than a greater profit on a smaller quantity of sales. Therefore by reducing prices, they make many more sales and hence the reason for price reductions with respect to new technologies.


----------



## lizzie (Nov 20, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Brutus said:
> ...


 
Definitely. It would bring the free market aspect into play, and prices for drugs and Drs office visits would come down accordingly.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2011)

lizzie said:


> Definitely. It would bring the free market aspect into play, and prices for drugs and Drs office visits would come down accordingly.



Alas... we seem hell bent on doing the opposite.


----------



## xotoxi (Nov 20, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> I don't understand why the price of MRI machines have not gone down in the way that DVD players, VHS players, Flat Screen TVs, etc. have gone down, after an initially high price.



Supply and demand.  There are very few places (hospitals and medical facilities) that are in the market to purchase an MRI machine, while nearly everyone has a DVD player, if not three.

Plus, the techology is much more complex with an MRI machine.


----------



## barb019 (Nov 21, 2011)

The problem I see is that the current solutions does not take full acount of all players involved in healthcare.  By allowing all the Healthcare insurance companies to still have control over what is paid for in their fee schedules, what premiums to assess to employers for their employees based on age of each individual and allow providers to charge what they do for each code that is billed, the tax payor is still getting screwed.
The government is making this mandated on monthly insurance premiums without addressing everything else that is involved that created the high cost of healthcare.  It is comparative to putting a bandaid on a wound that requires suturing first before it can heal properly.

The costs of healthcare is an illusion in the public's eye since nothing is ever paid in full on charges that are submitted to the insurance carrier.  They paid alittle over a third of what is billed and the provider must write it off if contracted with carrier.  If the public were to see the actual amount that the carriers are paying verses what is charged this definitely would not appear as if Healthcare Providers are charging too much.

The point is it is a game where providers of service have to attempt to increase their charges while the insurance company is always reducing their fee schedules of what they will pay or cover.  We only see what is being charged in total amount of services rendered.

Another point is doctors and hospitals charge in time spent with a patient with a code where they can charge more but the time spent does not justify the code they use and they should be using a code that honestly reflects the time spent.  They also will order tests if they know the carrier will pay for those even though the reason why they are there does not justify the test being done.  They use diagnosis codes that will get the claim paid for example: a person coming in with a headache, they will use a migraine code that the insurance will pay for.

Corruption is occuring at all levels and if they are not all addressed at the same time, this new healthcare act will fail miserasbly and we the tax payors will suffer the most.


----------



## Meister (Nov 21, 2011)

A percentage of it would be the cost of education these days.  The Dr.'s and tech's need to recoup the cost of education.


----------



## Douger (Dec 20, 2011)

Larger Waistlines Mean Smaller Capacity For Commercial Water Transit « CBS Atlanta


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 20, 2011)

Private health insurance administration costs are through the roof.
CEOs live like kings. Those make it expensive.


----------



## editec (Dec 20, 2011)

Per capital smokers cost medicad and medicar LESS THAN (not more than) non smokers.

Why?

Because they die younger and more quickly than people who don't smoke, that's why.

They don't live long enough to demand new hips, new knees, longe term medications for debilitaring but not fatal medical conditions.

Hey don't believe me?

Take the governments own numbers, include in those every person that they say died from smoking related diseases and include in those the total amounts spend on that class of patients.

Now deduct that number from the total cost of HC the government pays.

Take the remainder and divide that number by the people who didn't die from smoking related diseases.

What you find is that non-smokers cost our government on average, more money than smokers.

Throw in the fact that smokers pay and pay and pay taxes every day for their HC (that they don't really get most of their lives) and you discover that in terms of who costs more and who pays the most?

*Non-smokers are driving UP the cost of HC while smokers not only help keep it down but pay MORE in taxes for the previlege, too,*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 20, 2011)

Political Junky said:


> Private health insurance administration costs are through the roof.
> CEOs live like kings. Those make it expensive.



Biggest reason is consumers, not the people paying the tab in most cases with employer paid health insurance, over utilize the system.
"It is free so I might as well use it" mentality has ruined American health care.
Blank check health care is the problem.


----------



## editec (Dec 20, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Private health insurance administration costs are through the roof.
> ...


 
I'd like to see some statistics to prove that POV.

I doubt you can find them.


----------



## dblack (Dec 20, 2011)

editec said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Biggest reason is consumers, not the people paying the tab in most cases with employer paid health insurance, over utilize the system.
> ...



Of course not. Statistics don't work that way. Data can never _prove_ causation, only correlation. What is required is logical analysis of likely causes and effects to explain the correlation. It's a truism than when a consumer isn't spending their own money, they won't care about price. So it's not surprising that prices have risen as we've transitioned to third party payers as the standard way we finance health care. What IS surprising is that prices haven't gone up even faster than they have.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 20, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> For the Health Care System, we need Universal Health Care, not the horrid for profit system of today.
> 
> For our children, we need to do whatever it takes to get them physically active. That has mental benefits as well as physcial. Just living longer is not a good goal. Living longer actively is. One cannot do that as an obese slug.



One of the biggest reasons for the spike in costs is simple..and a dirty little secret.

HMOs went public. They have shareholders to be concerned about.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 21, 2011)

editec said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



If you had to pay the bill, instead of the insurance company, YOU would question the high prices and shop for a better one. 
You want statistics? You can handle the truth. 
From 1950 to 1965 health care costs grew at about 3-5% a year. In 1965 85% of Americans paid their own health care expenses, even those that had health insurance! Back then the insurance companies DID NOT run the show. Your doctor DID NOT bill the insurance. Back then YOU paid the bill and sent it to the insurance company for payment. And with most Americans NOT having health insurance the doctors answered to THE CONSUMER, YOU!
From 1965 forward health care costs went from going up 3-5% a year to now at a clip of 15% a year for the last 20 years. Health care in the 50s was 5% of GNP, now it is approaching 20% and rising.
Why? Because we OVER UTILIZE THE SYSTEM. And get this startling fact. NOw we spend 55% of ALL health care dollars on disease care to treat 4% of the population. And 80% of themare over the age of 70! And 7 of the top 8 of those diseases we treat are PREVENTABLE!
Group health care has ruined American health care as it has made us the best producer of DISEASE CARE.
One that has even the slightest knowledge of economics knows that when thew deamnd for services for one  sector of the economy goes from 5% to almost 20% in about 2 generations it is OVER UTILIZATION of the system from increased demand.
1965 85% of Americans paid their own health care costs and were BY FAR a healthier nation.
2011 85% of Americans HAVE GROUP HEALTH CARE OR GOVERNMENT PAID FOR HEALTH CARE and look at the massive failure it is cost wise and how unhealthy a nation we are.
We spend all that $$$and you claim there is no evidence to back up that the system is UNSUSTAINABLE, broken, over utlilized and not caused by GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE?
Wake up man.
Ball is in your court.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 21, 2011)

Blank check health care is the problem.
"Johnny has a cold so let us take him to the doctor" mentality.
Where my mother lives it is a hobby to go to the doctor. 
Blank check. Some one else pays the bill.
WAKE UP DUMBASS AMERICANS.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Private health insurance administration costs are through the roof.
> ...



That's incorrect. But even if it were correct..it's the HMOs themselves that are driving that. Instead of getting regular checkups..people are waiting until they have real problems before they see a physician. And generally that's emergency care. Regular checkups should be encouraged..and health of the indivdual should be better managed. Americans are, quite simply, overworked, overweight, stressed to the breaking point and out of shape.

And the whole idea of the profit motive for the HMOs..is a bad model. They went downhill since most of them went public. That's where you see costs going through the roof. Their responsibility should be the health of the clients..not the profits of the shareholders.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why? Because we OVER UTILIZE THE SYSTEM. And get this startling fact. NOw we spend 55% of ALL health care dollars on disease care to treat 4% of the population.



Seems a bit contradictory. You start off effectively implying that costs are relatively evenly distributed and thus 1) an insurance model doesn't make sense, and 2) most people are responsible for contributing to our high national expenditures ("we OVER UTILIZE THE SYSTEM").

Then, unprompted, you point out that, no, the opposite is the case: health expenditures are extremely concentrated, with a very small segment of the population accounting for the majority of expenditures (and though you didn't explicitly say it, I will: _most_--i.e. a little over 50%--of the population contributes virtually nothing to national expenditures).

There are serious issues with our current payment and delivery structures but asking people to return to a 1950s standard of medical care so things can be like they were probably isn't feasible.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 21, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Then why is health care 20% of GNP now?
Demand has pushed it to 20%.
Where my mother lives they have 2 home health care vultures in there that almost live there. They will walk an elderly person for an hour outside and bill Medicare $150.
My Dad died in May 2010. We had DNR orders in place. We had his living will to NOT keep him alive per HIS wishes. 
So what happened:
3 weeks before he died the home health care provider where he lived in Florida billed triple what I authorized. "Do not worry, Medicare will pay it" they stated. Well fuck, I did not want it and demanded they cease. They didn't even though I had medical power of attorney!! And it gets better, or in reality-worse. 
2 weeks before he died he went into the hospital. Now keep in mind that over the previous 2 years Dad had to go to the hosptal afew times. And EACH TIME it was HELL to get him out of there because HE WANTED TO GO HOME. But hospitals have beds to fill and doctors have Mercedes and country club memberships to pay for.
HELLO, ANYONE HOME? WELL WAKE THE HELL UP.
So 2 weeks before he died he goes into the hospital because he did need to. Within 4 days he was sliding down hill. I wanted to take him to a hospice. Now keep in mind that I live north of Atlanta and he lived in Fort Myers Florida and was at Lee General Hospital in Fort Myers. Lee General was a mile from his assisted living apartment. Lee General has another hospital at Gulf General which is 10 miles away-I will explain that to you later.
So I want to send him to the hospice and the hospice lady is THERE. She says "Fat chance" and I wondered why. So we had the DNR order in place there to not keep Dad on machines to live PER HIS ORDERS. He signed off on that years before. Well, the doctor says "He has come around abit so we want to send him to the nursing home next door" OK I thought. Surely this doctor was being honest. How stupid I was. So he goes next door to the nursing home and the DNR order goes with him in his file. The nect day I receive call from the nursing home "Well, we want to give him some therapy to see if he can walk" they stated. OK I said. 5 days later at 11pm I get a call from a male EMT from Lee county. "We just picked up your Dad from the nursing home and are taking him to the hospital". OK, so I called Lee General which is across the street from the nursing home. "We do not have him" they stated an hour later. At 1 am, 3 hours later I found out they took him to the Gulf Lee Memorial 10 miles away! Why? Because the DNR order WAS NOT IN PLACE THERE and they can run the tab up. After all, we were not paying Medicare was paying.
HELLO, ANYONE HOME? WAKE THE HELL UP.
So the next day I call the nursing home administrator and was furious that Dad was EVEN TAKEN BY THE AMBULANCE as Dad DID NOT want that as his DNR specifically stated Do Not Resusitate. PERIOD. "Oh, well, we could not find the order in the records or file and uh, well, let me see, we are sorry, but you know, we knew it was there somewhere as we did speak with you and him about it, maybe the dog ate it", etc. 
So the next morning I flew down there and I was at the hospital with Mom with the DNR order and Dad's membership card of The Right to Die Society of Florida. (found out later this is why folks like Dad join) I told them that per Dad's wishes to immediately take him the respirators and all machines. "Well, we do not know, there is not a hospice person here, are you sure?, the DNR order is not here but is that an original?, where are the other papers, are you sure?, maybe we can save him, let us try a few days". Absoultely no! I said. "Well go eat and stay a few days, rest and relax and we will get back to you.
Day 2 there: Dad's lawyer was there with me.
Day 3 there: We were going to petititon the court toforce them to take him off life support.
Day4 late evening they finally did. The doctor came in with the hospital administrator and told me to my face: "Well, we do get a few like you that do want to see their family member die" The lawyer and 3 male nurses had to restrain me.
Now during this time the hospice lady was there and by Florida statute-lobbied for by the AMA, the Florida physicians association and Hospital Association PROHIBITED her from giving us ANY ADVICE on what to do. After Dad died she told me this happens in almost every case.
Now the billing part: When he was at the nursing home for 5 days they billed $11,700 extra for speech therapy and also for occupational therapy, both at $150 an hour.
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY FOR A 89 YEAR OLD MAN.
And we got the report thing in that Medicare sends out on all the payments a few months later-that is how we found out-and they PAID IT ALL.
I called them and told my story-"Did he get the therapy" Well yes I stated but he did not need it. "then it is a legitimate bill and there is NOTHING WE CAN DO"
Blank check health care and you believe doctors and ALL health providers do not run up the tab all the time?
We got the 5 days in the hospital for Dad bill in the mail that Dad NEVER WANTED;
$129,700.000
Medicare paid $119,000.00 of it and I refused to pay the rest.
This is the norm. Diseas care is BIG $$$$
Average costs of health care for the last 5 years of an American's life is $120,000.00 per.
And you claim this is not the cause of spiralling health care costs? And this is not over utilization of the system?
All of south Florida operates this way. Average Medicare cost of south Florida-$14K a senior a year. Texas-$5.5K a year.
Blank check health care has ruined it.
"It is free so let's go".


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 21, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why? Because we OVER UTILIZE THE SYSTEM. And get this startling fact. NOw we spend 55% of ALL health care dollars on disease care to treat 4% of the population.
> ...



If a third party was paying the bill how many days of the week would you go the strip club for table dances and booze?
1 or 7?


----------



## lizzie (Dec 21, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


 
It's the responsibility of the individual to take care of his/her health. Not the insurance company. If you are fat or otherwise unhealthy, it's because of what you are doing, not what your insurance is not covering.


----------



## dblack (Dec 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> If a third party was paying the bill how many days of the week would you go the strip club for table dances and booze?
> 1 or 7?



And would you haggle over the prices for table dances? Or would you just go with the hottest girl?

I wonder what would happen to the prices....


----------



## rdean (Dec 21, 2011)

Republicans call skimming insurance policies for a CEO hundred million dollar paycheck, "Good Capitalism" and the product of "hard work".


----------



## dblack (Dec 21, 2011)

rdean said:


> Republicans call skimming insurance policies for a CEO hundred million dollar paycheck, "Good Capitalism" and the product of "hard work".



That's very 'rdean' of you, but what does it have to do with the topic?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 21, 2011)

dblack said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > If a third party was paying the bill how many days of the week would you go the strip club for table dances and booze?
> ...



Exactly, health care is our least efficient industry because it is the least Republican capitalist. With capitalism low price and high quality is the only way to stay in business.

Imagine how bad and expensive a car would be if there was no competition, like in liberal healthcare? These are the kind of kindergarten questions you have to ask a liberal. It is our thankless civic duty even though it is like trying to teach a dog calculus.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 21, 2011)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I see no objections from conservatives or liberals with the current system when someone else is paying their tab.
Where are all the conservatives crying foul when health care prices rise 15% a year and inflation is only 1%?
Blank check health care is a failure. The health care industry has figured out they can take advantage of it and they are, big time. 
Unfunded Medicare is around 20 trillion for the next 30 years.
Bye Bye America. Health care costs will bankrupt us.
Problem is no one understands basic economics. What I took my freshman year at the university.


----------



## dblack (Dec 21, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Blank check health care is a failure. The health care industry has figured out they can take advantage of it and they are, big time.



Exactly! Which is why they're pulling out all the stops to make sure we 'stay the course' on the failing model. They want to milk it for all it's worth and then set themselves up as 'public utilities' when government steps in to nationalize it. That's the overriding purpose of the ACA.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 21, 2011)

A different perspective I posted on another thread:

Treating a Nation of Anxious Wimps

"We have seen the enemy, and he is us."


----------



## dblack (Dec 21, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> A different perspective I posted on another thread:
> 
> Treating a Nation of Anxious Wimps
> 
> "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."



I read that article a while back. And the while the 'overconsumption' argument comes up fairly often, it fails to identify _why_ we seemingly have irresponsible demand for health care. Overconsumption is a direct result of the 'blank check' problem, and a problem parallel to health care inflation - but not its cause. It would be like concluding, in the stripper example above, that prices for lap dances were going up because we've become a nation of nymphomaniacs. Which would miss the point. Prices are going up because customers don't care about prices - because they're not footing the bill.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 22, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple.  We have found a way to increase life expectancy dramatically during a time when we have done everything else wrong.
> 
> First of all, our infant mortality rate is one of the worst, if not the worst, of all developed countries.  snip.



Myth: The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than that of other countries

Fact: The U.S. infant mortality rate is not higher; the rates of Canada and many European countries are artificially low, due to more restrictive definitions of live birth. There also are variations in the willingness of nations to save very low birth weight and gestation babies.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 22, 2011)

Ernie S. said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Why does it cost so much, and why do those costs continue to go up?  It really is very simple.  We have found a way to increase life expectancy dramatically during a time when we have done everything else wrong.
> ...



You are right but infant mortality has little or nothing to do with the cost of health care or how healthy a nation is.


----------



## Meister (Dec 22, 2011)

I just don't see how the government is going to lower Healthcare costs without creating a huge deficit.
I feel that it can be done through competitive pricing by opening up the borders of the states.  I also feel the government can create a safety net for those who aren't covered with pennies on the dollar instead of this healthcare bill going to maturity.
The government can be part of the solution, but it can't be the solution.


----------



## Meister (Dec 22, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Perhaps, the government should also  (through mandates) order us to wear brimmed hats outside to make a healthier nation in regards to skin cancer.  If this bill passes the muster with the Supreme Court, it opens up a can of worms on what the government can mandate.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2011)

Meister said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Yes there would be nothing the government could not make us do and the concept of America,i.e., freedom from government,  would, in effect , be destroyed. Thank you liberals. What you could not get by spying for Stalin you are getting in other ways:

Norman Thomas quotes:  
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 23, 2011)

Meister said:


> I just don't see how the government is going to lower Healthcare costs without creating a huge deficit.
> I feel that it can be done through competitive pricing by opening up the borders of the states.  I also feel the government can create a safety net for those who aren't covered with pennies on the dollar instead of this healthcare bill going to maturity.
> The government can be part of the solution, but it can't be the solution.



1. End government group health care for government workers immediately. They get a voucher.
2. Seniors get vouchers. End Medicare.
3. End tax write offs for group health care for employers. Give credits to employers for vouchers to be given to employees paid by company.
 For starters.
Government is involved now. End it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 23, 2011)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Liberals support the current system.
Liberals love it when someone else, group health insurance paid for by the company, provides for their blank check health care. Government offers large tax incentives to employers to keep it this way.
Liberals love Medicare where seniors get free blank check health care.
Liberals love it that all government workers get their health care paid for.
The current system is as close to socialism as it gets.
Conservatives want THE INDIVIDUAL to pay for their own damn health care, not group health care subsidized by government, not Medicare and Medicaid subsidized by government and not giving government workers blank check health care provided at tax payer expense.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 23, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Liberals love it when someone else, group health insurance paid for by the company, provides for their blank check health care. Government offers large tax incentives to employers to keep it this way.



Given the 9.5 percent affordability standard for employees' coverage and the coming limit on the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored insurance, the days of the "blank check" are ending. And if you want employees to be able to take a defined contribution from their employer into a competitive insurance market where you can choose a plan, that will also be an option. Things are changing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals love it when someone else, group health insurance paid for by the company, provides for their blank check health care. Government offers large tax incentives to employers to keep it this way.
> ...



For the bad they are changing in many cases. 
Insurance companies run the show. It takes my friend 2 extra employees just to figure out each of the 1000 health insurance companies in America and their different rules. 
He has been an MD for 30 years and states the current system is broken and unsustainable. He states the insurance companies only negotiate with the large companies for business and subsidize that market with very high premiums on the self employed.
And I can vouch for that as I am a small business.
Group health care is the problem. Someone else pays the bill.
"It is free so let us go"
And the end of year "I have already met my deductible so I am going to every doctor I can" mentality is being taken advantage of by the consumers and the doctors solicit it.


----------



## Euro (Dec 23, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> The bottom line is that we can reduce our healthcare costs dramatically by reducing our weight. .



I think a big country like US should give the states more power, let the states run the health-care programs not the government. States like California and Montana dosen&#8217;t have that large problem with obesity. Missisippi and Alabama are the states with most fat people. Their are big differences between the states. Small states with strong local power is always better than large centralized government. So more power and responsibilities to the states. Let the states decide what&#8217;s fits best for them.

It&#8217;s also seems at those states whcih a large majority of GOP voters struggle much more with obesity. E.g. Texas, Missisippi, Alabama.

The states with democrat majority voters like California, New York,Vermont, New Hampshire don&#8217;t have that big problem so socialized medicine can be more affordable in democrat states.

It seems to be a clear tendence that states with a majority of GOP voteres struggle much more with obesity than democrat states. I don&#8217;t know why but GOP states are fat. So the Pubs need to put on diet.


----------



## dblack (Dec 23, 2011)

Euro said:


> I think a big country like US should give the states more power, let the states run the health-care programs not the government. States like California and Montana dosent have that large problem with obesity. Missisippi and Alabama are the states with most fat people. Their are big differences between the states. Small states with strong local power is always better than large centralized government. So more power and responsibilities to the states. Let the states decide whats fits best for them....



Agreed. And you know what the US needs to do to give the states this power? Nothing. States already have the power to implement whatever health care programs they want. Unfortunately, the PPACA takes away the rights of the states to do as you suggest, forcing them all to follow a similar path.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 23, 2011)

Euro said:


> I think a big country like US should give the states more power, let the states run the health-care programs not the government.



State governments _do_ run their health care programs.


----------



## Meister (Dec 23, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > I think a big country like US should give the states more power, let the states run the health-care programs not the government.
> ...



states vs. federal mandate...does this help greenbeard?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 26, 2011)

kuanghuan said:


> the cost has gone way way done with a variety of machines available the world over. In Japan for example the cost of an MRI is about $200Liberals have made competition illegal here. Imagine the cost of a blue ray if liberals did that in that industry too?



You have no clue.
I am conservative Republican and know that the US leads the world in down time for expensive testing machines.
That is why they cost so much. In Japan the MRI is utilized over 90% of working days.
Less than 20% in America.


----------



## justathought (Jan 1, 2012)

I think prices became inflated because Medicaid and Medicare wouldn't pay full price for procedures.  Doctors and hospitals then raise the prices to compensate for lack of payment.  They know they are only going to get a certain percentage of the asking price.  Next thing you know they've created hyper inflation in the cost of health care.  They didn't goto school and learn to do that work to not get paid.  However, having an oath to preserve life should make prices affordable to a minimum wage full-time worker.  That is the best a lot of people can do, and it's a hard life full of hard work.


----------



## merrill (Jan 2, 2012)

"Why does healthcare cost so much? "

Because health care goes through the middleman who decides what care is covered in the insurance coverage regardless of what is necessary. That middleman is the medical insurance industry who is raking in bundles off others misfortune.

The medical insurance industry does not provide health care so why is the medical insurance industry involved at all?

Dump the medical insurance industry or better yet offer consumers IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance and allow voluntary sign up.  Now we're talking!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 2, 2012)

merrill said:


> "Why does healthcare cost so much? "
> 
> Because health care goes through the middleman



most goods and services go through many middle men, but capitalist competition makes stuff so cheap that Americans are the richest people in human histry.

Health care is an exception because liberals made  competition, which drives down price and quality up, illegal!!

Most liberals will lack the ability to understand how competition works.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 2, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > "Why does healthcare cost so much? "
> ...


Private Insurance can't compete with Medicare for All, and that's why the republicans want to change Medicare to a voucher [private] system.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> My biggest problem with gov't health care is our gov't.   I'm not concerned about how the british did it or the french did it.  They won't be running our system.
> 
> Before we allow the gov't to take over our healthcare, can someone tell me one thing our federal government does well and efficiently?   Ok, besides the military (we can bomb folks VERY well).



Social Security, for one thing.

MediCare, for another. Interesting, up to the age of 65, we are behind all the other industrial nations. After the age of 65, our stats are virtually identical with those of most other industrial nations. What happens at 65? MediCare.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > "Why does healthcare cost so much? "
> ...



What the hell are you talking about? Our health system is the most expensive in the world when compared on a per citizen basis. And we don't cover a significant percentage of our citizens. Our results are third world.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4]"We&#39;re Number 37" - Paul Hipp - YouTube[/ame]

Japan's cost is 1/3 of ours per citizen, they cover all of their citizens, and they have the highest longevity in the world, and their infant mortality is 1/2 of ours. In fact, the per citizen cost of every other industrial nation is lower than ours, and their results are all better. Even little Costa Rica has better results than we do, and they are not an industrialized nation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



OK. Canada is the nation closest to us in terms of culture. How do they fund their Health Care System? Their economy seems to be doing reasonably well.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Our health system is the most expensive in the world .



all agree but liberals lack the ability to understand and agree that capitalism drives costs down


----------



## lizzie (Jan 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


 
That's likely because they don't do the stupid shit our government does, like bailing out corporations, bankers, and other failures,  and their welfare programs aren't nearly as loosely funded as ours are.


----------



## jillian (Jan 2, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > For the Health Care System, we need Universal Health Care, not the horrid for profit system of today.
> ...



the government already makes those decisions for people on medicare/medicaid. i trust them far more than insurance companies who have a profit motive and who have proven that they will delay approval for treatment until the person dies.

and you shouldn't trust insurance companies either...and wouldn't if you had half the sense you were born with.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 18, 2012)

alecabaasi said:


> We all know that the health care is costing so mush..



because liberals made capitalism illegal in that industry??


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 18, 2012)

The good news is coming soon and is already being started:
Most insurance companies, especially the companies that insure government employees, are requiring "wellness" examinations of all the insured.
They are determing who is fat, who is a smoker and who is in bad shape health wise because they are lazy.
And they are being rated accordingly. Healthy employees that keep themselves in shape are being rewarded with a bonus of say $40-$100 a month for staying healthy.
Companies that hire fat, lazy, smokers and folks that do not practice the wellness program are penalized in their increased premiums.
THANK GOD SOME SENSE FINALLY.
This is the new wave coming and it is much needed. Now we have to transfer this to Medicare and Medicaid and weed out the dope heads, the smokers and the lazy and watch our premiums plummet.
You smoke and do not exercise and have no other disease that was not your fault? Sorry. We are no longer going to pay your high insurance premiums, we are going to fire you and you can fend for yourself.
About time.


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The good news is coming soon and is already being started:
> Most insurance companies, especially the companies that insure government employees, are requiring "wellness" examinations of all the insured.
> They are determing who is fat, who is a smoker and who is in bad shape health wise because they are lazy.
> And they are being rated accordingly. Healthy employees that keep themselves in shape are being rewarded with a bonus of say $40-$100 a month for staying healthy.
> ...



Wow....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 27, 2012)

The most significant way to make health care affordable is to make it competitive. Imagine how much you car would cost if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry.


----------



## Stephane (Jan 28, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The most significant way to make health care affordable is to make it competitive. Imagine how much you car would cost if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry.



The world is not agree with you, the most significant way to make healt care affordable is to make it free for everybody (indirectly, with taxes), like in my country, in France.

If your country is able to spend trillions of dollars in weapons, it can do it for your health I think.

It's the only way which can save your peaople but you must develop solidarity (take care of each other).

Regards,


----------



## Meister (Jan 28, 2012)

Stephane said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > The most significant way to make health care affordable is to make it competitive. Imagine how much you car would cost if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry.
> ...



Spoken exactly like the socialist he is.  There is no free healthcare you moron.  Your taxes pay for your "free healthcare". sheesh.
(I wonder what percent the government takes from the French?)


----------



## Stephane (Jan 28, 2012)

Stephane said:


> The world is not agree with you, the most significant way to make healt care affordable is to make it free for everybody (indirectly, with taxes), like in my country, in France.
> 
> If your country is able to spend trillions of dollars in weapons, it can do it for your health I think.
> 
> ...





Meister said:


> Spoken exactly like the socialist he is.


I understand that the term "socialist" is an insult in your country but I my country (conservative, so...) it's not. In France (by extension in whole Europe) people is more important than money, it 's an assumed fact.

Do I understand that Moore'Sicko is not a caricature about your system, you really think that socialism is equal to communism? Do you ever travel through the world and saw how the world is working?



Meister said:


> There is no free healthcare you moron.


Why do you need to insult? A moderator who insult, wow! I'm here to discuss with smart/nice people!



Meister said:


> Your taxes pay for your "free healthcare". sheesh.
> (I wonder what percent the government takes from the French?)



The really fact is we have the lowest infant death rate in the world, and you?

Yes we pay taxes but we are able the live until 90yo without any cancer because our healcare companies is agreee with preventive medicine because it is a very good system which it is more profitable in the medium term, a tumor is less expendsive to treat than a advance cancer.

I came here to discuss because I thought that there were Christians who are abe to reason with compassion (instead some atheists).

I start to think that the reallity is american people is afraid by its own authorities and it is very easy to manipulate people who are scared, like all the world saw the Bush Era...

Take care 

Edit: To be more factual about taxes, we pay in France bout 10% taxes (poor people 5% and less, very rich people until 40%). This is important but we pay never and nothing for meds and for doctors, specialists and hospital, never and nothing so it is really profitable. But we have private healthcare companies too ($20-$100/mo) for people who need "premium" services like individual room in hospital, branded and costly glasses or specific dental problem for example.


----------



## Meister (Jan 28, 2012)

Stephane said:


> Stephane said:
> 
> 
> > The world is not agree with you, the most significant way to make healt care affordable is to make it free for everybody (indirectly, with taxes), like in my country, in France.
> ...



#1, I'm only a moderator when there is a need to moderate, any other time I'm entitled to my opinion just like you are, so knock of the mod crap, okay?  Sounds like you want to talk to people in the leftwing echo chamber, Stephane.

As far as the infant mortality rate...who knows?  We count the deaths differently that France and the rest of the world, Stephane.  We need to have an even playing field to figure this out, but my guess would be were as good as anyone.

No I don't think that socialism is the same as communism, but socialism has more government than what we have.

yes, I am afraid of what big government can do...look at China...look at Hitler, so yes your right there, but it is with good cause.  Sorry you don't see it.

Reason with Compassion?  Really?  Who is more compassionate than the USA when we are needed in the world, who is more charitable than the USA?   I don't think YOU really know how our country really works.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 28, 2012)

Stephane said:


> people who are scared, like all the world saw the Bush Era...



1) France is a poor county with the income or Arkansas so we don't need advice from France

2) Americans have 80% of all recent medical patents. We just saved your life because your health system was invented in America.

3) if Americans were scared we would not have liberated Iraq, Afganistan and France, when you were with the Nazis.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 28, 2012)

Stephane said:


> the most significant way to make healt care affordable is to make it free for everybody (indirectly, with taxes), like in my country, in France.




actually if you make goods and services free they become more expensive because they get wasted. I know in France they have very little education, but ask you Mom what would happen if they made cars free in France..


----------



## Euro (Jan 28, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Stephane said:
> 
> 
> > the most significant way to make healt care affordable is to make it free for everybody (indirectly, with taxes), like in my country, in France.
> ...



How much do you pay in Health Insurance pr. month Edward, and do you get a tax-credit for it?
Has your price gone up or down after the greatest healthcare invetion in modern history "obamacare" were established?

My point is that after Obamas liberal reform in the health industry you pay less, right?


----------



## Euro (Jan 28, 2012)

Meister said:


> Stephane said:
> 
> 
> > Stephane said:
> ...



I think US has more government than most european countries. US spends three times more than whole europe on military.
Where US spends the money on military, europe spends it on their people.

Whats so great with spending your tax money on military, wouldnt it be better to get some services you need back for it?


----------



## Meister (Jan 28, 2012)

Euro said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Stephane said:
> ...



We have this thing in this country called personal freedom of choice.  If we don't want it, we don't get it.  We don't have a government forcing it on us....yet.  By the way, how is that economy going for you over there?  From what we here....most of the countries are ass deep in debt and sinking, and gas near or at $10.00 a gal, or litre.


----------



## Meister (Jan 28, 2012)

Euro said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Stephane said:
> ...



We're paying more....go figure, huh?


----------



## Euro (Jan 28, 2012)

Meister said:


> Euro said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You as an american are not allowed to trade with Cuba, that is what I call government force. Many european companies just took large oil contracts just outside the US coast. They laugh of the Yanks, that are not interested in oil just outside their coast.

Not being allowed to trade with Cuba is not what I call freedom of choiche, thats fascistic government force.


----------



## Meister (Jan 28, 2012)

Euro said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Euro said:
> ...



That's what you have on us?  I agree we have too much government and I want less.
Now, how much do you pay for a litre of gas?  What percentage of your wages is taxed?
How is your country doing economically?
Oh...and by the way, we are paying higher premiums for healthcare than we did last year.
Also, the euro is really in trouble along with the european countries. your social policies are coming back to bite you people in the ass.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2012)

Euro said:


> I think US has more government than most european countries. US spends three times more than whole europe on military.
> Where US spends the money on military, europe spends it on their people.
> 
> What&#8217;s so great with spending your tax money on military, wouldn&#8217;t it be better to get some services you need back for it?



1) of course a liberal will not know history at all . The USA spent on  military and so was able to save Europe from the Nazis, and then give them the basics on civilization to begin again in our very un-Nazi like  image.

2) Nevertheless with a feudal Nazi past it has been a struggle for Europe. Their tendency is to collectivise liberally. Accordingly, their income on average is like our poorest state, Arkansas. Without American inventions ( we have 80% of all recent medical patents for example) Europe would have about 40% of our standard of living.

3) Also, with the very very odd feudal Nazi past Europe is seen more as an old world theme park than anything and so collects huge tourist dollars without which they would be even further behind.

4) its all failing apart so badly that the people don't reproduce anyway; so the end is in sight on that basis alone; if not,  as a manifestation of all of the above.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 29, 2012)

Euro said:


> My point is that after Obamas liberal reform in the health industry you pay less, right?



of course thats idiotic. Those who now get it free pay less of course, and those who have to pay for those who get in free pay more.

This is something only your mother can help you understand.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 29, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The most significant way to make health care affordable is to make it competitive. Imagine how much you car would cost if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry.



I agree 100%.
The current system where someone else is paying your health care premiums and another entity is administering the policy has little or no competititon in it.
My current policy has me as the one that administers the policy and a wellness program is the basis of the underwriting.

Of course to those that have no knowledge on this subject other than to receive an insurance card from their employer all of this is 20 feet over their head.

What I find amazing is that most Americans believe that an insurance company just sells a health policy not knowing the health history of the individual they are selling to. 
News flash to the dumb mass Americans: insurance companies ARE getting more competitive in their underwriting-they are screening out the unhealthy! This is great news!!
Of course there are high risk companies that will write you-at twice the premiums.
No longer will the private market subsidize fat, unhealthy, smoking lazy Americans. 
Go ahead and live that life but your insurance premiums will reflect it and the employers will not hire you because you cost too much to insure.


----------



## ClaimTechnologi (Jan 30, 2012)

The health care industry incorporates several sectors that are dedicated to providing health care services and products.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 30, 2012)

ClaimTechnologi said:


> The health care industry incorporates several sectors that are dedicated to providing health care services and products.



actually they'd be a lot more dedicated if they faced real competition and customers who were spending their own money.

Soviet car makers were dedicated too but still you had to use a dip stick to know how much gas you had in your tank.

Had they been in a Republican capitalist environment they would have been dedicated enough to invent a gas gauge.


----------



## merrill (Jan 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The most significant way to make health care affordable is to make it competitive. Imagine how much you car would cost if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry.



There are more than 2000 health insurance providers = more than 2000 CEO's and golden parachutes. And lots of special interest money to members of congress and lobbyists.

And a tremendous amount of bureaucracy with over 2000 providers.

This is competitive?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 30, 2012)

The most significant way to make health care affordable is to make it competitive. Imagine how much you car would cost if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry.[/quote]




merrill said:


> There are more than 2000 health insurance providers = more than 2000 CEO's and golden parachutes. And lots of special interest money to members of congress and lobbyists.
> 
> And a tremendous amount of bureaucracy with over 2000 providers.
> 
> This is competitive?



actually the liberals made health care competition illegal. Now you know why it is so expensive and in need of capitalist reform. 

Imagine what would happen to the price and quality of autos if the liberals made competition illegal??


----------



## merrill (Jan 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The most significant way to make health care affordable is to make it competitive. Imagine how much you car would cost if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry.






merrill said:


> There are more than 2000 health insurance providers = more than 2000 CEO's and golden parachutes. And lots of special interest money to members of congress and lobbyists.
> 
> And a tremendous amount of bureaucracy with over 2000 providers.
> 
> This is competitive?



actually the liberals made health care competition illegal. Now you know why it is so expensive and in need of capitalist reform. 

Imagine what would happen to the price and quality of autos if the liberals made competition illegal??[/QUOTE]

Again a non rebuttal.


----------



## merrill (Jan 30, 2012)

Why does health insurance cost so much?

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.

At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care. Rockefeller said he was exploring "why consumers get such a raw deal from their insurance companies."

The star witness at the hearing was a former public relations executive for major health insurers whose testimony boiled down to this: Don't trust the insurers.

"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," said Wendell Potter, who until early last year was vice president for corporate communications at the big insurer Cigna.

Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.

More on this story:
Senate Panel Hears of ÂRaw Deal' Consumers Get From Health Insurers


Did anyone get a refund yet?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 30, 2012)

merrill said:


> Again a non rebuttal.



dear, if you say its a non rebuttal you must say why its a non rebuttal or simply admit to being too confused to say.


----------



## merrill (Jan 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > Again a non rebuttal.
> ...




How in the world did anyone make competition illegal?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 30, 2012)

merrill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > merrill said:
> ...




You may have noticed that you cant buy health insurance across state lines. This is because the brilliant liberal mind made it illegal.

Imagine how expensive your car would be if each state demanded a particular kind of car or two. Most manufactures would sell a limited number of very expensive cars in a few states, but the national and international competition would be gone, price would skyrocket and quality would plunge. 

Now you see how the liberals ruined the industry. If you took your idea about private savings accounts and then allowed national competition too, the price of medical care would be cut in half at least, and the quality would shoot up 1000 times. Why, we might all live forever, but we won't find out until we lift the liberal soviet yoke from our backs.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 30, 2012)

How is the Bush Prescription Drug Plan "competitive"?

Now over 65% of all prescription drugs are paid for by the government.
Before Bush it was 20%.
Blank check health care has never been a Republican/Democrat thing.
Name one Republican that has cut Medicare. 
Republicans do not have the balls either to cut government health care spending on Medicare, the fastest out of control growing government probgram.25-30% of Medicare spending is fraud and waste.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> merrill said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You know, you really are a dumb ass.
The individual states have restricted the sale of insurance with each state having THE INSURANCE COMPANIES lobbying to keep it that way.
Every elected official in Georgia in power now could change that and they would all be REPUBLICANS.
You do not know shit about the health insurance industry. I own 3 corporations and deal with it every day.
Go back and play in your sand box with the small fry.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 30, 2012)

Anyone with a day in the business world knows that the real reason health insurance is not sold across state lines is because the insurance industry likes things the way they are now. They claim they are protecting the consumer but they are practicing market protectionism.
Insurance companies DETEST competition. The insurance lobby have bought state Legislatures into "believing" that consumers benefit from each state having their own insurance regulations barring them from buying a legally recognized commodity in another state.
All a Legislature has to do is pass a law in any state to allow the buying and selling of insurance across their individual state's lines.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> How is the Bush Prescription Drug Plan "competitive"?
> 
> Now over 65% of all prescription drugs are paid for by the government.
> Before Bush it was 20%.
> ...



of course thats not true. Any Republican plan will have numerous free market incentives in it like HSA's, but to get elected in a growing liberal country you need indpendent and Democratic votes so Republicans don't push too hard.

If they did push clearly and hard they would be impotent like the Libertarians. Its called politics.
Most importantly, 100% of the free market energy is in the Republican party.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > How is the Bush Prescription Drug Plan "competitive"?
> ...



Your heart is in the right place but you do not know shit about the insurance industry.
Insurance legislation IS A STATE ISSUE dude.
Go out and educate yourself to what is going on. Each state has an insurance commissioner. 
There is NO Federal law banning the sale of insurance across state lines.
This has nothing to do with Democrat/Republican.
Do you think insurance lobby cares about any of that??
I deal with this everyday. We are close to getting it but it will come through the state legislatures.
What Federal Law mandated by liberals are you speaking of that bans the sale of insurance across state lines?
I will wait until hell freezes over for your answer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 31, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Your heart is in the right place but you do not know shit about the insurance industry.



let's see



Gadawg73 said:


> Insurance legislation IS A STATE ISSUE dude.



sadly for you The Affordable Care Act (Obama Care)is Federal.




Gadawg73 said:


> Go out and educate yourself to what is going on. Each state has an insurance commissioner.
> There is NO Federal law banning the sale of insurance across state lines.



JURIST - Feature: Health Care Reformjurist.org/feature/2011/06/health-care-reform.phpCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Comprehensive health care reform was passed by Congress in March 2010 after .... legislation that would create an interstate Health Care Compact (HCC) that, .... federal law makes it illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines.




Gadawg73 said:


> This has nothing to do with Democrat/Republican.



of course it does. Republicans want capitalist health care, while Democrats don't, obviously!!




Gadawg73 said:


> Do you think insurance lobby cares about any of that??



the insurance lobby , no, but that was not our subject was it????



Gadawg73 said:


> I deal with this everyday. We are close to getting it but it will come through the state legislatures.
> What Federal Law mandated by liberals are you speaking of that bans the sale of insurance across state lines?
> I will wait until hell freezes over for your answer.



sadly, you have the address above.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 31, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Your heart is in the right place but you do not know shit about the insurance industry.
> ...



You are about as lost as a blind puppy.
CURRENT law health insurance is a mandate of the states.
BEFORE Obamacare NO health insurance could be sold across state lines.
Why do you play like you are ignorant and stupid?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 31, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Comprehensive health care reform was passed by Congress in March 2010 after .... legislation that would create an interstate Health Care Compact (HCC) that, .... federal law makes it illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines.



Federal law does not make it illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 31, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> You are about as lost as a blind puppy.
> CURRENT law health insurance is a mandate of the states.



JURIST - Feature: Health Care Reformjurist.org/feature/2011/06/health-care-reform.phpCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Comprehensive health care reform was passed by Congress in March 2010 after .... legislation that would create an interstate Health Care Compact (HCC) that, .... federal law makes it illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines.[/SIZE]




Gadawg73 said:


> BEFORE Obamacare NO health insurance could be sold across state lines.



yes according to state law as site above proves. Sorry




Gadawg73 said:


> Why do you play like you are ignorant and stupid?



now you know it pays to be cautious.


----------



## scsinsurance1 (Feb 2, 2012)

Studies reveals that human body costs of $300 crore according to this figure insurance is too less...


----------



## Blueblood (Feb 3, 2012)

3 reasons why health care cost keep rising...............litigation,litigation,litigation


----------



## melonsmartin (Feb 3, 2012)

My view is that we should ignore these factors, but I do not think lasting care prices accelerated close to accounting. I want to say yes, we should not neglect the tilt of the market incentives, which is mainly what we are doing.


----------

