See we told you.. Mcdonalds is ordering 7K touch screen to replace cashiers

[Indeependent]

Do you drive the "safest" car on the road? Or do you compromise? Do accept that there is only one best doctor and he is no longer accepting patients because he can't work 20hrs a day, or do you find the next best doctor that is available? Do you purposefully take the highest price procedure that is not recommended by your doctor or the one the doctor recommends? Would you buy a two year old million dollar scanner for your medical practice or a new one that is better and only costs 200k?

Look at the costs of medical care, examine each element and tell me what's broken. Staring you back in the face will be the problems, government will be at the root of most of them, not our medical professionals. Most of the time the issues will be related to government provided monopolies, price gouging, people not paying their bills and the medical professionals being forced by the government to pass those costs to paying customers.

Our system's costs are mostly due to the government, looking to them to fix it is ludicrous.

While government causes problems, I think you are forgetting or underestimating the costs that new medical technologies and techniques have had. Not only does it cost a lot to buy and maintain high tech medical equipment, the constant improvement in medicine leads to longer lifespans, which leads to more need of medical treatment, which leads to greater costs.....

There are also people who game the system, the costs of litigation, etc. There is, I think, quite a lot behind the rising cost of medical care. Blaming it on government is an oversimplification IMO.

Not really.. I sat in a meeting about 12 years ago with a team of folks designing a home use nebulizer for a new drug.. The idea being to reduce the cost of going to the OutPatient clinic multiple times a month.. All the presentations were over from the marketing types and I chimed up and said..

"You've given us no guidance on the recurring COST of this product.. What kind of range were you thinking?"

I got laughed at.. And then the suited marketing creeps explained that the GOVT would STILL cost the reimbursement as an OUTPATIENT procedure. So as long as my engineering team didn't exceed say $500 or $800 for a simple nebulizer --- COST was not a concern...

Since ALL medical codes and reimbursements are based on GOVT reimbursements --- this effect STIFLES cost control from the very start... If govt UNDERSTOOD and REACTED to every potential cost saving reimbursement -- it might be different. But that's WAAAAAAY beyond the scope of their managerial competence..

I believe we can thank GW for that.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's quit a stretch. Gov't created nothing and Apple did not develop and market the IPhone just to pay their tax bill.

Looks like you were out sick the day they taught how to use irony in high school.

Think where they'd be if there were no regulated banking system, no transportation infrastructure, no patent office, no SEC, no education system to hire from, no ready supply of dependable energy, no justice system or police force, no international trade agreements supporting open markets, no national defense, no GPS system for their (crappy) mapping, no communications infrastructure for their phones to even bother to talk to, etc.

Apple is a great corporation, but the fact of the matter is that the USA made that possible.

More evidence? The USA is 1/20th the population of earth.

So, for every Apple there should be 20 other Apples in other nations. But, that's clearly not what one finds. Our government has created a hugely advantaged location on earth for there to be innovators such as Apple.

And, boo f'ing hoo if Apple ends up having to pay for part of that as they reap the wealth.

You have succeeded in highlighting the CARNAGE that has occurred in American Tech leadership.. As APPLE is one of the few HAPPY stories left.. We've lost the lead in every other CONSUMER item. We have no Electronics supply chain LEFT in this country. And someones' left the door open so that the "sucking sound" can continue..

There are now BIGGER companies than American giants who used to lead almost every market segment. Most Americans dont even know the names of the OWNERS of industry.

 

[flacaltenn]

While government causes problems, I think you are forgetting or underestimating the costs that new medical technologies and techniques have had. Not only does it cost a lot to buy and maintain high tech medical equipment, the constant improvement in medicine leads to longer lifespans, which leads to more need of medical treatment, which leads to greater costs.....

There are also people who game the system, the costs of litigation, etc. There is, I think, quite a lot behind the rising cost of medical care. Blaming it on government is an oversimplification IMO.

Not really.. I sat in a meeting about 12 years ago with a team of folks designing a home use nebulizer for a new drug.. The idea being to reduce the cost of going to the OutPatient clinic multiple times a month.. All the presentations were over from the marketing types and I chimed up and said..

"You've given us no guidance on the recurring COST of this product.. What kind of range were you thinking?"

I got laughed at.. And then the suited marketing creeps explained that the GOVT would STILL cost the reimbursement as an OUTPATIENT procedure. So as long as my engineering team didn't exceed say $500 or $800 for a simple nebulizer --- COST was not a concern...

Since ALL medical codes and reimbursements are based on GOVT reimbursements --- this effect STIFLES cost control from the very start... If govt UNDERSTOOD and REACTED to every potential cost saving reimbursement -- it might be different. But that's WAAAAAAY beyond the scope of their managerial competence..

I believe we can thank GW for that.

What the heck was comment about? GWB wasn't in that meeting.. And the med codes and reimbursement lists are WAAAY older than GWB admin..

 

[Montrovant]

Do you drive the "safest" car on the road? Or do you compromise? Do accept that there is only one best doctor and he is no longer accepting patients because he can't work 20hrs a day, or do you find the next best doctor that is available? Do you purposefully take the highest price procedure that is not recommended by your doctor or the one the doctor recommends? Would you buy a two year old million dollar scanner for your medical practice or a new one that is better and only costs 200k?

Look at the costs of medical care, examine each element and tell me what's broken. Staring you back in the face will be the problems, government will be at the root of most of them, not our medical professionals. Most of the time the issues will be related to government provided monopolies, price gouging, people not paying their bills and the medical professionals being forced by the government to pass those costs to paying customers.

Our system's costs are mostly due to the government, looking to them to fix it is ludicrous.

While government causes problems, I think you are forgetting or underestimating the costs that new medical technologies and techniques have had. Not only does it cost a lot to buy and maintain high tech medical equipment, the constant improvement in medicine leads to longer lifespans, which leads to more need of medical treatment, which leads to greater costs.....

There are also people who game the system, the costs of litigation, etc. There is, I think, quite a lot behind the rising cost of medical care. Blaming it on government is an oversimplification IMO.

Not really.. I sat in a meeting about 12 years ago with a team of folks designing a home use nebulizer for a new drug.. The idea being to reduce the cost of going to the OutPatient clinic multiple times a month.. All the presentations were over from the marketing types and I chimed up and said..

"You've given us no guidance on the recurring COST of this product.. What kind of range were you thinking?"

I got laughed at.. And then the suited marketing creeps explained that the GOVT would STILL cost the reimbursement as an OUTPATIENT procedure. So as long as my engineering team didn't exceed say $500 or $800 for a simple nebulizer --- COST was not a concern...

Since ALL medical codes and reimbursements are based on GOVT reimbursements --- this effect STIFLES cost control from the very start... If govt UNDERSTOOD and REACTED to every potential cost saving reimbursement -- it might be different. But that's WAAAAAAY beyond the scope of their managerial competence..

That doesn't change the fact that, say, an MRI machine is an expensive piece of equipment. It doesn't change that R&D on new drugs is expensive, and often not cost effective if the malady a drug is targeting doesn't effect a large portion of the population. It doesn't change the fact that people tend to live longer and that we can live through things that often would have killed us in the past, meaning people end up using more medicine than they used to.

Unless you have evidence that somewhere there is a completely unregulated medical system and it is less expensive than here with at least comparable results, I don't see how you can blame government for the entirety of medical costs. Sure, government can screw things up and contribute to costs, but there are plenty of other factors as well.

 

[initforme]

What would happen if nobody actually ate at one of those god awful places for one day? Why people chose to eat that garbage is beyond me. Leave your job, go home, and cook for yourself. Quit poisoning your kids too.

 

[Indeependent]

Not really.. I sat in a meeting about 12 years ago with a team of folks designing a home use nebulizer for a new drug.. The idea being to reduce the cost of going to the OutPatient clinic multiple times a month.. All the presentations were over from the marketing types and I chimed up and said..

"You've given us no guidance on the recurring COST of this product.. What kind of range were you thinking?"

I got laughed at.. And then the suited marketing creeps explained that the GOVT would STILL cost the reimbursement as an OUTPATIENT procedure. So as long as my engineering team didn't exceed say $500 or $800 for a simple nebulizer --- COST was not a concern...

Since ALL medical codes and reimbursements are based on GOVT reimbursements --- this effect STIFLES cost control from the very start... If govt UNDERSTOOD and REACTED to every potential cost saving reimbursement -- it might be different. But that's WAAAAAAY beyond the scope of their managerial competence..

I believe we can thank GW for that.

What the heck was comment about? GWB wasn't in that meeting.. And the med codes and reimbursement lists are WAAAY older than GWB admin..

GW's team had the option of controlling Medicare drug costs like every other nation and the schmuck pulled his usual "Free Market" sound-bite out of his pants.
If Medicare proved the ability to pay reasonable prices for medications it would have exposed the nonsense that medications have to be $300.00 for a month's supply.

 

[flacaltenn]

While government causes problems, I think you are forgetting or underestimating the costs that new medical technologies and techniques have had. Not only does it cost a lot to buy and maintain high tech medical equipment, the constant improvement in medicine leads to longer lifespans, which leads to more need of medical treatment, which leads to greater costs.....

There are also people who game the system, the costs of litigation, etc. There is, I think, quite a lot behind the rising cost of medical care. Blaming it on government is an oversimplification IMO.

Not really.. I sat in a meeting about 12 years ago with a team of folks designing a home use nebulizer for a new drug.. The idea being to reduce the cost of going to the OutPatient clinic multiple times a month.. All the presentations were over from the marketing types and I chimed up and said..

"You've given us no guidance on the recurring COST of this product.. What kind of range were you thinking?"

I got laughed at.. And then the suited marketing creeps explained that the GOVT would STILL cost the reimbursement as an OUTPATIENT procedure. So as long as my engineering team didn't exceed say $500 or $800 for a simple nebulizer --- COST was not a concern...

Since ALL medical codes and reimbursements are based on GOVT reimbursements --- this effect STIFLES cost control from the very start... If govt UNDERSTOOD and REACTED to every potential cost saving reimbursement -- it might be different. But that's WAAAAAAY beyond the scope of their managerial competence..

That doesn't change the fact that, say, an MRI machine is an expensive piece of equipment. It doesn't change that R&D on new drugs is expensive, and often not cost effective if the malady a drug is targeting doesn't effect a large portion of the population. It doesn't change the fact that people tend to live longer and that we can live through things that often would have killed us in the past, meaning people end up using more medicine than they used to.

Unless you have evidence that somewhere there is a completely unregulated medical system and it is less expensive than here with at least comparable results, I don't see how you can blame government for the entirety of medical costs. Sure, government can screw things up and contribute to costs, but there are plenty of other factors as well.

Look --- you are essentially right about stuff being expensive.. But the diff btwn an expensive MRI machine and an expensive "semi-custom" drug stems from diff. economic factors.

One reason MRI machines are so expensive is that the tests the make are all REIMBURSED the same. There is no incentive to innovate on cost. The calculations literally are made by how much of the physicians/hospitals wallets they can grab based on 14 or 20 exams a day.

In a market where the reimbursements are NOT homogenized and standardized, where CONSUMERS and PHYSICIANS are controlling the costs --- the price of equipment and services would fall.. Just TRY to ask your GP doctor how much a stress test costs. They have no f'ing idea.. And neither do you.. The best medicine for medical costs is to go back to a CONSUMER driven market pricing model.. The OPPOSITE direction --- single payer --- will be guaranteed to keep prices of equipment and services high and suffocate innovation to death..

Which BTW --- WILL HAPPEN --- as folks are forced to accept higher deductible health insurance. Cost ARE going to come down because of that. Because the MAJORITY of folks will be self-insuring for the 1st 3K or 5K of expenses..

Look at the Veterinary Med biz.. It's gotten more sophisticated with a much LOWER inflation of costs. Because consumers and vets BOTH are aware of the pricing and costs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wasn't the British East India Company merely perusing profit at the time
Time of the Boston TeaParty?

There comes a time of recognition that the goals of a corporation, and the goals of the society it lives in, are not one and the same.

HUH? The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with producers or traders.
The Tea Party was a protest of government.
Taxation without representation.

Which brings us to the 25K dollar question...
What happens when the majority votes for someone who raises taxes?
Is that Taxation Without Representation?

You're not going to get away with a pigeon hole question.
The concept of an absolute democracy was rejected by the framers. Hence a representative republic was born.
BTW, this country has had it with wasteful government and it's insatiable appetite for spending. So your question is moot.
But since you opened the door, if this mystery person, I am assuming President, decides it's time to take a bigger shovel to out bank accounts, he or she will be rejected.
Oh, the Executive branch cannot by law unilaterally increase or even lower taxes.
No further debate on this point is necessary.

 

[Indeependent]

HUH? The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with producers or traders.
The Tea Party was a protest of government.
Taxation without representation.

Which brings us to the 25K dollar question...
What happens when the majority votes for someone who raises taxes?
Is that Taxation Without Representation?

You're not going to get away with a pigeon hole question.
The concept of an absolute democracy was rejected by the framers. Hence a representative republic was born.
BTW, this country has had it with wasteful government and it's insatiable appetite for spending. So your question is moot.
But since you opened the door, if this mystery person, I am assuming President, decides it's time to take a bigger shovel to out bank accounts, he or she will be rejected.
Oh, the Executive branch cannot by law unilaterally increase or even lower taxes.
No further debate on this point is necessary.

Your ideology has given you tunnel vision.
This is no pigeon hole question.
We have elected representatives.
If they vote to raise taxes, taxes go up on the targeted income groups.
If you don't like this, elect different representatives.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I have yet to meet anyone whose health care premiums have not been skyrocketing since the mid 2000s.
Physicians bill according to the IDC{9}{10} schedule and whatever loss they take they write off at years end.

Correct, we have been getting more and more "help" from our government. As a matter of fact the amount of help we are getting appears to be skyrocketing right along with the price.

By law we're adding the feature that insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick and the feature that you can get insured even if you have a preexisting condition. We're also adding the feature that you can have health care coverage even if you are poor.

Lets remember that EVERY other first world nation has these features, yet spends far less than we do on health care. And, they still outperform us in significant areas.

True. But not accurate. Obamacare is neither open ended nor is it designed to cover all maladies. There are many many conditions and so called 'efficiencies' in the law.
These limit what will be covered. Allow bureaucrats to make decisions as to who gets care or a pill.

 

[Indeependent]

Correct, we have been getting more and more "help" from our government. As a matter of fact the amount of help we are getting appears to be skyrocketing right along with the price.

By law we're adding the feature that insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick and the feature that you can get insured even if you have a preexisting condition. We're also adding the feature that you can have health care coverage even if you are poor.

Lets remember that EVERY other first world nation has these features, yet spends far less than we do on health care. And, they still outperform us in significant areas.

True. But not accurate. Obamacare is neither open ended nor is it designed to cover all maladies. There are many many conditions and so called 'efficiencies' in the law.
These limit what will be covered. Allow bureaucrats to make decisions as to who gets care or a pill.

Where did you get the impression that For-Profits make decisions based on the input of physicians?
I know two physicians who negotiate between hospitals and insurance firms and their negotiations are based 99% on business/profit requirements.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you have the right assets you don't have to worry about minimum wage:

Woo ... if only those assets were real.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6qHdtyBWy4]Huge Tracts of Land - YouTube[/ame]

 

[beagle9]

RANKINGS OF COUNTRY HEALTH CARE FOR EFFICIENCY, LIFE EXPECTENCY AND COST.

</title> <script src='/rapi/js_config.js' type='text/javascript'></script> <script src="http://cdn.gotraffic.net/v/20131210_161555/javascripts/visual-data/jquery-1.8.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script> $.fn.localizeDateStamp = function

WHO says, US sucks.

No one says the US health care system sucks, at least I don't, but why can't it be even better ? Doesn't anyone want it to be the best it can be for all, and I mean to include health care for all Americans who can enter the same doorways as the rest of the Americans do ?

You know what, I think that going to the emergency room because one can't or couldn't afford health care, ((to me)) is the same as going to the back of the bus just as Rosa Parks was expected to.

Now how did we get on this topic ?

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you have the right assets you don't have to worry about minimum wage:

Woo ... if only those assets were real.

Those are called "aftermarket accessories"

 

[Indeependent]

The ACA defines the level of quality of instruments and machines that are to be used in medical facilities.
Every physician I have spoken with has updated their offices and has been allowed to write it off over a number of years.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What I'm saying is that when life is at stake, there is no choice. It isn't capitalism anymore, because of that fact. You can not expect capitalism to keep prices down when it isn't capitalism.

Obviously, not every health care issue is life or death, but in general there is less capitalism in buying health care than there is in buying big screen TV sets. With my mother (who died of throat cancer, having never smoked), I would have mortgaged my future. With my TV, I could have decided to get entertainment some other way. Maybe I could go to a movie once in a while or maybe do more reading if I thought the price of the TV was too high. So, capitalism works in this case - the TV manufacturer works to keep the price competitive with other TVs and even with other entertainment options.


As for the three features I mentioned (including coverage for preexisting conditions), the previous poster had noted that prices were going up and implied that it is a problem with regulation. I mentioned those three features as having potential for adding upward price pressure and noted that cost effective systems still include those features. If our system (now or before Obamacare) can't handle that, then it is a problem with our system.

And, yes, I do prefer single payer for health care.

Do you drive the "safest" car on the road? Or do you compromise? Do accept that there is only one best doctor and he is no longer accepting patients because he can't work 20hrs a day, or do you find the next best doctor that is available? Do you purposefully take the highest price procedure that is not recommended by your doctor or the one the doctor recommends? Would you buy a two year old million dollar scanner for your medical practice or a new one that is better and only costs 200k?

Look at the costs of medical care, examine each element and tell me what's broken. Staring you back in the face will be the problems, government will be at the root of most of them, not our medical professionals. Most of the time the issues will be related to government provided monopolies, price gouging, people not paying their bills and the medical professionals being forced by the government to pass those costs to paying customers.

Our system's costs are mostly due to the government, looking to them to fix it is ludicrous.

While government causes problems, I think you are forgetting or underestimating the costs that new medical technologies and techniques have had. Not only does it cost a lot to buy and maintain high tech medical equipment, the constant improvement in medicine leads to longer lifespans, which leads to more need of medical treatment, which leads to greater costs.....

There are also people who game the system, the costs of litigation, etc. There is, I think, quite a lot behind the rising cost of medical care. Blaming it on government is an oversimplification IMO.

Hmm. Longer lifespans are suddenly a problem?
You said so yourself. "More medical treatment which leads to higher costs"..
Are you implying that elderly people should not be treated so that frequency of care can be reduced which, in your view. would make the cost of medicine lower?
Gee, why don't we just give the Black Pill to every person who reaches their 70th birthday.

If this is not what you meant, you really need to think very carefully about your intent of meaning before posting. People may get the wrong idea.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's quit a stretch. Gov't created nothing and Apple did not develop and market the IPhone just to pay their tax bill.

Looks like you were out sick the day they taught how to use irony in high school.

Think where they'd be if there were no regulated banking system, no transportation infrastructure, no patent office, no SEC, no education system to hire from, no ready supply of dependable energy, no justice system or police force, no international trade agreements supporting open markets, no national defense, no GPS system for their (crappy) mapping, no communications infrastructure for their phones to even bother to talk to, etc.

Apple is a great corporation, but the fact of the matter is that the USA made that possible.

More evidence? The USA is 1/20th the population of earth.

So, for every Apple there should be 20 other Apples in other nations. But, that's clearly not what one finds. Our government has created a hugely advantaged location on earth for there to be innovators such as Apple.

And, boo f'ing hoo if Apple ends up having to pay for part of that as they reap the wealth.

All or nothing straw man arguments are rejected.

 

[Impenitent]

Not a fact. The Tea Party participants were small merchants who were victims of the East India Company's monopoly and tax advantage.

It was the equivalent of an OWS demonstration, or an employee strike.

We didn't revolt over taxaction without representation. We revolted over unfair business practices.

Bam, you just slipped and fell flat on your face. Wow, that must have hurt. Note in the red, you just showed the problem was not "business practices," it was government. Government gave them the monopolies and the tax advantages. And your solution is to make government stronger. Wow, that's a tough shot you just gave yourself, it's gotta hurt. You might want to sit down a while.

Note this is like McDonalds, government is driving them to automate by artificially inflating labor costs. And again, your solution is to make government stronger. Maybe you should start thinking logically.

Ronald Reagan: Government is not the solution, government is the problem...

When business and the government are one and the same, it is "business practices" that are the problem. Do a little research on the East India Company. The Company, not the Pilgrims, founded the colonies. Look at how this company ruled India with an iron fist, at the time of the American Revolution. Do you think our founders were unaware of this?

The Boston Tea Party was a direct response to the power of the East India Co. It wasn't a government interfering with private enterprise, it was private enterprise (the East India Co) interfering with government!

 

[Indeependent]

Looks like you were out sick the day they taught how to use irony in high school.

Think where they'd be if there were no regulated banking system, no transportation infrastructure, no patent office, no SEC, no education system to hire from, no ready supply of dependable energy, no justice system or police force, no international trade agreements supporting open markets, no national defense, no GPS system for their (crappy) mapping, no communications infrastructure for their phones to even bother to talk to, etc.

Apple is a great corporation, but the fact of the matter is that the USA made that possible.

More evidence? The USA is 1/20th the population of earth.

So, for every Apple there should be 20 other Apples in other nations. But, that's clearly not what one finds. Our government has created a hugely advantaged location on earth for there to be innovators such as Apple.

And, boo f'ing hoo if Apple ends up having to pay for part of that as they reap the wealth.

All or nothing straw man arguments are rejected.

Explain the straw man.

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe we can thank GW for that.

What the heck was comment about? GWB wasn't in that meeting.. And the med codes and reimbursement lists are WAAAY older than GWB admin..

GW's team had the option of controlling Medicare drug costs like every other nation and the schmuck pulled his usual "Free Market" sound-bite out of his pants.
If Medicare proved the ability to pay reasonable prices for medications it would have exposed the nonsense that medications have to be $300.00 for a month's supply.

You missed the fact that shortly afterwards WalMart rose to that challenge and started to eat into the drug margins in a big way.. One major retailer has done more to reduce drug costs than Congress ever has..

The whole drug margin fight is between the drug companies and the insurance reimbursers. The RETAIL COST go up as the insurance companies beat them up over reimbursable cost. Nobody with insurance pays those "retail" prices. The REST can shop at Walmart.

15 evil profit motivated insurers are a better cost advocate than one asleep at the switch Congressional hearing..

THAT'S what Bush was saying.. And (in a rare moment) he was correct...