Healthcare should not be a PROFIT driven field

[auditor0007]

.

It doesn't have to be a binary, either/or situation.

I want companies competing for my business, knowing full well that such competition breeds innovation, efficiencies and progress. The last thing I want is a massive, bureaucratic monopoly in charge of the health care of myself and my loved ones. Good gawd.

At the same time, the inefficiencies inherent in such a bureaucracy can be acceptable to a point in providing foundational preventive and diagnostic services for everyone, which is something we don't have now. Recognizing problems early saves significant money and prolongs and improves lives. A healthier populace is both good economics and an improved general standard of living.

Unfortunately, both "major" parties have their heads squarely up their ass on this issue and we appear to be stuck with what we have.

.

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

 

[Care4all]

.

It doesn't have to be a binary, either/or situation.

I want companies competing for my business, knowing full well that such competition breeds innovation, efficiencies and progress. The last thing I want is a massive, bureaucratic monopoly in charge of the health care of myself and my loved ones. Good gawd.

At the same time, the inefficiencies inherent in such a bureaucracy can be acceptable to a point in providing foundational preventive and diagnostic services for everyone, which is something we don't have now. Recognizing problems early saves significant money and prolongs and improves lives. A healthier populace is both good economics and an improved general standard of living.

Unfortunately, both "major" parties have their heads squarely up their ass on this issue and we appear to be stuck with what we have.

.

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

BOY OH BOY that would change things OVER NIGHT!

Can you imagine taking away the tax deduction from the employer.....? Wonder if the employers would ADD the amount they spend on our health insurance to our salaries once they drop insurance for us?

My previous employers sent us a compensation statement at the end of the year which included what they spent on HC Insurance.....as part of my total compensation....

And the only reason employers can deduct what they spend on health insurance IS BECAUSE it is considered part of the employee's salary....so they should give us, or those that are working with HC benefits, the amount they were spending on HC should be added to the employee salary.

And you know businesses will be figuring out a way to skirt that, if they can....but hopefully they will add the HC amount to our salaries....

Even if they did add this money to our salaries, there still would be huge resistance by us for the cost of health care and prices will drop....drop and drop....

or if they don''t then WE, THE PEOPLE will ALL be demanding Universal Health care from birth to death....

but truly, if we all were paying for our own health care insurance or health care on its own, without the contribution of our employers, there would be much greater market influence/resistance to bring the health care costs down.... prices SHOULD tumble....or if health care was a widget, it should tumble, butttt.... uhhhh......I dunno....? health care is a necessity, health care can mean life or death..... a widget is a widget.... so maybe health care is different?

 

[Mac1958]

.

It doesn't have to be a binary, either/or situation.

I want companies competing for my business, knowing full well that such competition breeds innovation, efficiencies and progress. The last thing I want is a massive, bureaucratic monopoly in charge of the health care of myself and my loved ones. Good gawd.

At the same time, the inefficiencies inherent in such a bureaucracy can be acceptable to a point in providing foundational preventive and diagnostic services for everyone, which is something we don't have now. Recognizing problems early saves significant money and prolongs and improves lives. A healthier populace is both good economics and an improved general standard of living.

Unfortunately, both "major" parties have their heads squarely up their ass on this issue and we appear to be stuck with what we have.

.

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

It's an absurdity that employers have to be responsible for a person's health care coverage. The costs and red tape associated with it have nothing to do with running the business, and the benefits are not portable for the employee. We're now in a truly global and hyper-competitive business economy, yet we insist in putting this gorilla on the backs of our businesses.

Everyone should have basic coverage that would cover preventive and diagnostic treatment, if not some more. A healthier populace is good economics, plus preventive and diagnostic coverage will decrease costs by catching problems early. Obviously. Then the free market can compete by offering buy-up plans, much like Medicare is now. The insurance companies would be freakin' flooded with new business without having to cover the nickle and dime shit that plugs up the works and slows down the system. This would allow for the competition we need for innovation and creativity.

What both ridiculous "sides" of this debate are avoiding is this: With or without the ACA, we still, amazingly, have FIVE (5) health care payment systems: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, group/individual and indigent. All different systems, little if no coordination.

And. That. Is. Fucking. Stupid. How in the world can anyone defend this?

A great example of what happens when a bunch of shallow-thinking, narcissistic partisan ideologues get their teeth into something this important and large.

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, now that we are professing to speak for Jesus.

Christ would not want the government we have now where we essentially hook people on welfare and goodies and take away their dignity and spirit.

Wouldn't want it? Why? Because he was clearly a Republican?

What about the good Samaritan? Didn't he help those who others wouldn't help?

As for whether he'd want govt getting people on welfare, no one can really claim anything because hell, welfare didn't exist back then.

What does it have to do with being a Republican? And what, precisely, do you think the connection is between personal, individual charity and compassion and bloated, monolithic government programs?

As a matter of fact, anyone who's bothered to study the Bible and think independently for a few minutes can see that the dependency and sense of personal irresponsibility fostered by welfare is very much contrary to what the Bible teaches us to strive for in our lives and our society. It's not exactly rocket magic.

Doesn't have anything to do with being a Republican. I was making a point that someone was trying to claim that Jesus would clearly be interested in something that comes from the Republican Party, when in actual fact the issue would not have been relevant 2000 years ago. It was sarcasm.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then how come the US has better survival rates for those "serious problems"? How come you're more likely to survive a bout with any type of cancer you'd care to name in the US than in any of the countries of western Europe? Why is it that people dying or becoming permanently disabled while waiting for surgery and treatment in the UK became an open scandal not that long ago?

There are lots and lots of issues with what you're saying. Firstly US healthcare is good.
However it's not as good as the money being pumped in, and it's not as good as the money going on corruption.

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life expectancy, the US is 35th in the world. This of course isn't all about healthcare, this is about lifestyle, food as well as healthcare. But life expectancy is high.

List of countries by cancer rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US has a high rate of cancer, which doesn't mean more people get cancer though, it just means, perhaps, that more people actually end up in hospital being diagnosed with cancer.

Where healthcare under government control can be a problem is when the government messes around with healthcare.
The UK, as an example, saw the Tories basically not bother with it that much until they were kicked out in 1997. Then Labour pumped in loads of spending, but were making mistakes along the way, though cancer survival rates increased, then the Tories get back in and are destroying it.
Seeing as the US is low tax, and yet the govt spends the same percentage of GDP, you have to wonder why the Tories are reducing health spending.

But the point still being made is, you can have private healthcare on top of the NHS in the UK and it won't cost you more than the US for a similar service.

 

[Seawytch]

.

It doesn't have to be a binary, either/or situation.

I want companies competing for my business, knowing full well that such competition breeds innovation, efficiencies and progress. The last thing I want is a massive, bureaucratic monopoly in charge of the health care of myself and my loved ones. Good gawd.

At the same time, the inefficiencies inherent in such a bureaucracy can be acceptable to a point in providing foundational preventive and diagnostic services for everyone, which is something we don't have now. Recognizing problems early saves significant money and prolongs and improves lives. A healthier populace is both good economics and an improved general standard of living.

Unfortunately, both "major" parties have their heads squarely up their ass on this issue and we appear to be stuck with what we have.

.

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

Yeah...we might see Single Payer a lot faster.

 

[frigidweirdo]

People have the dumbest frigging ideas about healthcare these days, I swear to God. The level of entitlement, laziness, and whining pathos just appalls me.

Case in point: Today I took a call from a patient who was incensed - literally INCENSED! - because the claim he put in for his medication at a retail pharmacy was rejected by the insurance. I looked up the claim and explained that his insurance plan only covered that medication with a prior authorization. Next words out of his mouth - and I could see it coming, because I have this exact same conversation multiple times every day; it's like there's a script somewhere: "What gives you the right to override my doctor's decision about my medications and tell me I can't take this?" *sigh*

Now I'm rolling my eyes and drumming my fingers on the desk, trying to maintain a polite, professional tone of voice instead of telling this guy what I'm really thinking. You leftists in the audience are going, "Yeah, he's right!" but you conservatives out there know exactly what's coming.

"Sir, no one is overriding your doctor or telling you you can't take the medication. You're more than welcome to fill the prescription out-of-pocket, and no one will stop you. However, the insurance company reserves the right to choose not to pay for this medication unless certain criteria are met. All you need to do is have your doctor initiate a coverage review requesting that they pay for the medication."

What followed was much whining about how much pain he was in, didn't we understand how important his medications were, he paid a lot for his insurance and how dare they not cover everything he might want whenever he might want it, I guess I'll just skip my medication and suffer, and other such maunderings. The funny thing is that in amongst all that whinging was a lot of complaining about how it was too much trouble for him to call his doctor and pass along the phone number to our Prior Authorizations department so he could get an approval by tomorrow and go pick up his frigging prescription. I thought you just said it was important, dumbass. Now it's not important enough for you to make a freaking phone call to your own doctor? Really?

But then insurance companies are like that.
I'm looking at travel insurance, and it's crazy. There was on middle priced insurance that wouldn't pay out if you ended up in a a hundred different situations. It was basically like not having insurance.

The point being, why should you have to jump through bureaucratic hoops just to get medicine. In other countries you don't have to jump through hoops and hope you've remembered everything right in order to not get messed over.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

It doesn't have to be a binary, either/or situation.

I want companies competing for my business, knowing full well that such competition breeds innovation, efficiencies and progress. The last thing I want is a massive, bureaucratic monopoly in charge of the health care of myself and my loved ones. Good gawd.

At the same time, the inefficiencies inherent in such a bureaucracy can be acceptable to a point in providing foundational preventive and diagnostic services for everyone, which is something we don't have now. Recognizing problems early saves significant money and prolongs and improves lives. A healthier populace is both good economics and an improved general standard of living.

Unfortunately, both "major" parties have their heads squarely up their ass on this issue and we appear to be stuck with what we have.

.

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

Yeah...we might see Single Payer a lot faster.

Only if brain dead losers like you fell for the next pol promising free shit.
In the real world people would choose exactly the coverage they wanted and could afford. People who choose what they want tend to be more satisfied than people who have shit foisted on them by others.

 

[Seawytch]

Want to see some overnight changes? Get health insurance out of the hands of employers. Make everyone buy their own.

Yeah...we might see Single Payer a lot faster.

Only if brain dead losers like you fell for the next pol promising free shit.
In the real world people would choose exactly the coverage they wanted and could afford. People who choose what they want tend to be more satisfied than people who have shit foisted on them by others.

Single payer isn't "free shit", it's the most effective and efficient way to deliver healthcare to a populace. You know how insurance pools work, right? More people spreading the cost out...healthy people paying for sick ones, etc. You understand all that right?

Do you also understand supplemental insurance? Insurance companies will survive. America will have a two tier system, no worries.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah...we might see Single Payer a lot faster.

Only if brain dead losers like you fell for the next pol promising free shit.
In the real world people would choose exactly the coverage they wanted and could afford. People who choose what they want tend to be more satisfied than people who have shit foisted on them by others.

Single payer isn't "free shit", it's the most effective and efficient way to deliver healthcare to a populace. You know how insurance pools work, right? More people spreading the cost out...healthy people paying for sick ones, etc. You understand all that right?

Do you also understand supplemental insurance? Insurance companies will survive. America will have a two tier system, no worries.

Single payer-government health care=failure.
Government is never the most effective or efficient way to do anything. They always fuck up. Always.

 

[guno]

Soooo. you like a system that is even more "socialist" than our system. The swiss system requires insurance for all, subsidies to the poor and profits can't be made on the basic insurance.

So maybe you don't like Obamacare because it's not socialist enough? That must be it.

Such a ridiculous statement to make.

You are basically one of those people who have been told that socialism is bad, it must be bad, it has to be bad, it can't seriously work, no, no, no.

Open your eyes.

Insurance companies are part of the problem in the US. They make profit, and instill corruption within the system.
Admin for healthcare in the US is 30% of overall spending, that's double what Canada spends as a percentage (and far more because the US spends double what Canada spends, so it spends 4 times more just messing around with admin).

Why should I have to fill the pockets of some insurance dude who doesn't actually make me better, in order to get healthcare? It's ridiculous.

But the Swiss have the highest life expectancy in the world, they do so for less money. And all you whine on about is "socialism" or at least your warped view of what socialism means.

They whine about government making decisions on healthcare but have no problem that a clerk making 12 dollars an hour working for an insurance company can make the call on health care base on insurance company rules. Health insurance companys do NOTHING but skim off the top. But that's OK with the blunt skulls

 

[The Rabbi]

Soooo. you like a system that is even more "socialist" than our system. The swiss system requires insurance for all, subsidies to the poor and profits can't be made on the basic insurance.

So maybe you don't like Obamacare because it's not socialist enough? That must be it.

Such a ridiculous statement to make.

You are basically one of those people who have been told that socialism is bad, it must be bad, it has to be bad, it can't seriously work, no, no, no.

Open your eyes.

Insurance companies are part of the problem in the US. They make profit, and instill corruption within the system.
Admin for healthcare in the US is 30% of overall spending, that's double what Canada spends as a percentage (and far more because the US spends double what Canada spends, so it spends 4 times more just messing around with admin).

Why should I have to fill the pockets of some insurance dude who doesn't actually make me better, in order to get healthcare? It's ridiculous.

But the Swiss have the highest life expectancy in the world, they do so for less money. And all you whine on about is "socialism" or at least your warped view of what socialism means.

They whine about government making decisions on healthcare but have no problem that a clerk making 12 dollars an hour working for an insurance company can make the call on health care base on insurance company rules. Health insurance companys do NOTHING but skim off the top. But that's OK with the blunt skulls

You're not very bright or well informed, are you?

 

[Iceweasel]

People have the dumbest frigging ideas about healthcare these days, I swear to God. The level of entitlement, laziness, and whining pathos just appalls me.

Case in point: Today I took a call from a patient who was incensed - literally INCENSED! - because the claim he put in for his medication at a retail pharmacy was rejected by the insurance. I looked up the claim and explained that his insurance plan only covered that medication with a prior authorization. Next words out of his mouth - and I could see it coming, because I have this exact same conversation multiple times every day; it's like there's a script somewhere: "What gives you the right to override my doctor's decision about my medications and tell me I can't take this?" *sigh*

Now I'm rolling my eyes and drumming my fingers on the desk, trying to maintain a polite, professional tone of voice instead of telling this guy what I'm really thinking. You leftists in the audience are going, "Yeah, he's right!" but you conservatives out there know exactly what's coming.

"Sir, no one is overriding your doctor or telling you you can't take the medication. You're more than welcome to fill the prescription out-of-pocket, and no one will stop you. However, the insurance company reserves the right to choose not to pay for this medication unless certain criteria are met. All you need to do is have your doctor initiate a coverage review requesting that they pay for the medication."

What followed was much whining about how much pain he was in, didn't we understand how important his medications were, he paid a lot for his insurance and how dare they not cover everything he might want whenever he might want it, I guess I'll just skip my medication and suffer, and other such maunderings. The funny thing is that in amongst all that whinging was a lot of complaining about how it was too much trouble for him to call his doctor and pass along the phone number to our Prior Authorizations department so he could get an approval by tomorrow and go pick up his frigging prescription. I thought you just said it was important, dumbass. Now it's not important enough for you to make a freaking phone call to your own doctor? Really?

Great post.
Many Americans are whiny crybabies that are responsible for nothing and act like they are special and demand to be treated as such. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why you can't take a medication indefinitely without supervision. They would be the first to sue if complications developed. They're spoiled brats and some of the elderly are the worse ones.

 

[Iceweasel]

They whine about government making decisions on healthcare but have no problem that a clerk making 12 dollars an hour working for an insurance company can make the call on health care base on insurance company rules. Health insurance companys do NOTHING but skim off the top. But that's OK with the blunt skulls

If they make 5 or 50 dollars an hour it doesn't change the fact that they should follow company guidelines. I never heard of a clerk making those decisions, it's up to the practitioner and insurance providers. Making profits are slimming off the top? How much money should they loose to suit you?

 

[Seawytch]

Only if brain dead losers like you fell for the next pol promising free shit.
In the real world people would choose exactly the coverage they wanted and could afford. People who choose what they want tend to be more satisfied than people who have shit foisted on them by others.

Single payer isn't "free shit", it's the most effective and efficient way to deliver healthcare to a populace. You know how insurance pools work, right? More people spreading the cost out...healthy people paying for sick ones, etc. You understand all that right?

Do you also understand supplemental insurance? Insurance companies will survive. America will have a two tier system, no worries.

Single payer-government health care=failure.
Government is never the most effective or efficient way to do anything. They always fuck up. Always.

Riiiggghttt...that's why all the countries with it have better outcomes and pay less. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

 

[guno]

Such a ridiculous statement to make.

You are basically one of those people who have been told that socialism is bad, it must be bad, it has to be bad, it can't seriously work, no, no, no.

Open your eyes.

Insurance companies are part of the problem in the US. They make profit, and instill corruption within the system.
Admin for healthcare in the US is 30% of overall spending, that's double what Canada spends as a percentage (and far more because the US spends double what Canada spends, so it spends 4 times more just messing around with admin).

Why should I have to fill the pockets of some insurance dude who doesn't actually make me better, in order to get healthcare? It's ridiculous.

But the Swiss have the highest life expectancy in the world, they do so for less money. And all you whine on about is "socialism" or at least your warped view of what socialism means.

They whine about government making decisions on healthcare but have no problem that a clerk making 12 dollars an hour working for an insurance company can make the call on health care base on insurance company rules. Health insurance companys do NOTHING but skim off the top. But that's OK with the blunt skulls

You're not very bright or well informed, are you?

They must be a commie organization huh goober

The current proposals for U.S. health care reform focus mostly on extending insurance coverage, decreasing the growth of costs through improved efficiency, and expanding prevention and wellness programs. The policy debate has been overwhelmingly centered on the first two of these elements. Achieving universal insurance coverage in the United States would protect households against undue financial burdens at the same time that it was saving an estimated 18,000 to 44,000 lives

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064

 

[frigidweirdo]

Great post.
Many Americans are whiny crybabies that are responsible for nothing and act like they are special and demand to be treated as such. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why you can't take a medication indefinitely without supervision. They would be the first to sue if complications developed. They're spoiled brats and some of the elderly are the worse ones.

Perhaps people just want things to work for them.

When things don't work, you have to wonder why they're not being fixed.

Why are things made with hoops to jump through, places to get caught out, problems to solve for no reason other than an insurance company wants to stop people being able to claim money from them so they can make high profits?

Yes, people in western countries are spoiled, that's what comes from having a good life. You have expectations about the good life, and one of those is not to be screwed over by people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If they make 5 or 50 dollars an hour it doesn't change the fact that they should follow company guidelines. I never heard of a clerk making those decisions, it's up to the practitioner and insurance providers. Making profits are slimming off the top? How much money should they loose to suit you?

Admin for US healthcare costs 30% of all healthcare spending. Put this into perspective. The US govt pays 50% of healthcare costs, so that means that 60% of what you put into your healthcare through insurance, goes on admin, not on treating anything, not on doctors, but on insurance companies and things like that.

In Canada it's 15% on admin. So that's 15% of what is spend is going on unnecessary expenditure just to line the pockets of people.

How much money then goes on pure corruption? Things like drug companies getting doctors to give the more expensive drug because the patient doesn't care, the insurance company is "paying for it", the insurance company doesn't care because those paying the insurance fees are paying for it.
It leads to a weird mentality, it leads to corruption, it leads to spending too much.

 

[Iceweasel]

Great post.
Many Americans are whiny crybabies that are responsible for nothing and act like they are special and demand to be treated as such. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why you can't take a medication indefinitely without supervision. They would be the first to sue if complications developed. They're spoiled brats and some of the elderly are the worse ones.

Perhaps people just want things to work for them.

When things don't work, you have to wonder why they're not being fixed.

Why are things made with hoops to jump through, places to get caught out, problems to solve for no reason other than an insurance company wants to stop people being able to claim money from them so they can make high profits?

Yes, people in western countries are spoiled, that's what comes from having a good life. You have expectations about the good life, and one of those is not to be screwed over by people.

I answered that above. Which part of that escapes you? If a patient continues a medication unmonitored they could develop problems. Then they may blame the doctor. Or pharmacy. Or insurance company that helped pay for it, etc.

Your attitude exemplifies the problem, Some people think if they don't get their way it's a conspiracy to keep them down and they deserve a good life. And if the company doesn't loose money or break even they were ripped off.

 

[The Rabbi]

Single payer isn't "free shit", it's the most effective and efficient way to deliver healthcare to a populace. You know how insurance pools work, right? More people spreading the cost out...healthy people paying for sick ones, etc. You understand all that right?

Do you also understand supplemental insurance? Insurance companies will survive. America will have a two tier system, no worries.

Single payer-government health care=failure.
Government is never the most effective or efficient way to do anything. They always fuck up. Always.

Riiiggghttt...that's why all the countries with it have better outcomes and pay less. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

You're one of those "low information" voters they talk about, arentcha?