The Real Cost of Healthcare In The US

[Political Junky]

Cost of CEO salaries alone is enormous.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...-cross-parents-ceo-pay-climbs-to-12-9-million

(Crain's) — New federal regulations intended to force health insurers to spend less on administration didn't keep the parent of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois from paying CEO Patricia Hemingway Hall more than $12.9 million in 2011, a 61 percent raise.
The Health Care Service Corp. chief executive's total compensation last year dwarfed the $8 million she received in 2010, according to a filing with the Illinois Department of Insurance. The 2011 increase was fueled by an $11.8 million bonus, which was 69 percent above her 2010 bonus of $7 million.
Ms. Hall wasn't alone in getting a big raise at Health Care Service, whose insurance business booked net income of more than $1 billion in 2011, for the second straight year.
The 10 highest-paid executives at the Chicago-based mutual company — which operates Blue Cross plans in Illinois and three other states — earned a collective $41.7 million, 65 percent more than the $25.3 million they were paid in 2010.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps...20519922.jpg&maxw=368&q=100&cb=20130411031840
<more>

 

[dblack]

For anything resembling a free market approach, consumers would have to pay healthcare providers a lot more of their hard earn dollars than they do now ...

What leads you to that conclusion? Are you suggesting the policies currently preventing a free market in health care are holding prices down??

... the healthcare consumer would be faced with the daunting task of determining the value of a service versus cost.

We do that for all kinds of complex goods and services. You don't have to be expert in medicine to be an informed health care consumer.

 

[Flopper]

For anything resembling a free market approach, consumers would have to pay healthcare providers a lot more of their hard earn dollars than they do now ...

What leads you to that conclusion? Are you suggesting the policies currently preventing a free market in health care are holding prices down??

... the healthcare consumer would be faced with the daunting task of determining the value of a service versus cost.

We do that for all kinds of complex goods and services. You don't have to be expert in medicine to be an informed health care consumer.

The free market will never be able to control cost because it depends on the buyers being able to make comparative analysis of costs and benefits. Doctors, by necessity, act as sellers, and agents of other sellers (hospitals, labs, pharmaceutical companies). Buyers must depend on the judgment of sellers as to what is necessary, or even prudent. Imagine buying a car and having to rely on the recommendations of the salesman. Healthcare must be delivered by "Doctor's orders" not patient orders.

A few years ago, I was walking home and fell. The next thing I knew, I was in a hospital. Someone had to tell me the name of the hospital. I spent 12 days there and the cost was just over $125,000. During those days, I must have had a half dozen doctors, tests after test, and two surgeries. The bill was the size of a book and would have take a technician to interpret it. To think that that the patient will question and evaluate cost is ridiculous.

 

[BillyV]

Cost of CEO salaries alone is enormous.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...-cross-parents-ceo-pay-climbs-to-12-9-million

(Crain's) — New federal regulations intended to force health insurers to spend less on administration didn't keep the parent of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois from paying CEO Patricia Hemingway Hall more than $12.9 million in 2011, a 61 percent raise.
The Health Care Service Corp. chief executive's total compensation last year dwarfed the $8 million she received in 2010, according to a filing with the Illinois Department of Insurance. The 2011 increase was fueled by an $11.8 million bonus, which was 69 percent above her 2010 bonus of $7 million.
Ms. Hall wasn't alone in getting a big raise at Health Care Service, whose insurance business booked net income of more than $1 billion in 2011, for the second straight year.
The 10 highest-paid executives at the Chicago-based mutual company — which operates Blue Cross plans in Illinois and three other states — earned a collective $41.7 million, 65 percent more than the $25.3 million they were paid in 2010.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps...20519922.jpg&maxw=368&q=100&cb=20130411031840
<more>

This woman earned $12.9 million for running one of the largest insurers in the world, with $49 billion in sales:

By contrast, this man earned $85 million for beating other people up:

This man earned $59.4 million for hitting a little white ball with a stick:

And I'm guessing this will really frost you. Earned $80 million:

Why is it that CEO's who are responsible for the results of multibillion dollar corporations are not considered worth as much as, say, Glenn Beck?

 

[Antares]

I absolutely agree.

Having worked in the Heath Care Industry for 10 years, I frankly disagree with your assessment. PPACA is designed for one thing and that is to make the system fail and usher in the single payer.

That has been the Progressive goal since FDR.

Yes.

In 2001, my wife was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Ten months later she lost her battle. Total cost of her treatment and care during that ten months was over $1.3 million. That was over ten years ago. The average home sells for around $250,000. That is five homes paid off, for treatment of a cancer that didn't save her life in the end, and it was just for ten months of treatment. There just is no logic to what we are paying for healthcare.

 

[Flopper]

Cost of CEO salaries alone is enormous.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...-cross-parents-ceo-pay-climbs-to-12-9-million

(Crain's) — New federal regulations intended to force health insurers to spend less on administration didn't keep the parent of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois from paying CEO Patricia Hemingway Hall more than $12.9 million in 2011, a 61 percent raise.
The Health Care Service Corp. chief executive's total compensation last year dwarfed the $8 million she received in 2010, according to a filing with the Illinois Department of Insurance. The 2011 increase was fueled by an $11.8 million bonus, which was 69 percent above her 2010 bonus of $7 million.
Ms. Hall wasn't alone in getting a big raise at Health Care Service, whose insurance business booked net income of more than $1 billion in 2011, for the second straight year.
The 10 highest-paid executives at the Chicago-based mutual company — which operates Blue Cross plans in Illinois and three other states — earned a collective $41.7 million, 65 percent more than the $25.3 million they were paid in 2010.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps...20519922.jpg&maxw=368&q=100&cb=20130411031840
<more>

I agree that salaries of Healthcare CEO's are shocking, but insurance profits are not the major problem. The major problem is you and me. We want the freedom of choice to have healthcare delivered to us from who we want, when we want it, and where we want. That choice cost us dearly and it does not contribute to better health outcomes.

What is needed is more triage, determining the priority of patients' treatment. Resources should be allocated not based on what a patient wants but rather what a patient needs. If we do this, we will drastically reduce the rise in healthcare costs and have better outcomes.

If you look at countries that are doing a better job of managing healthcare costs, you'll find that the patient's freedom of choice is not a high priority.

 

[dblack]

I absolutely agree.

In 2001, my wife was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Ten months later she lost her battle. Total cost of her treatment and care during that ten months was over $1.3 million. That was over ten years ago. The average home sells for around $250,000. That is five homes paid off, for treatment of a cancer that didn't save her life in the end, and it was just for ten months of treatment. There just is no logic to what we are paying for healthcare.

Everyone, for the most part, agrees on this. The question is, what is the cause and what's the remedy?

 

[dblack]

To think that that the patient will question and evaluate cost is ridiculous.

If they're spending their own money, it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. That's the problem with the situation we have now: when it comes to health care, most people aren't spending their own money.

 

[lynn63]

It is going to take all of the larger corporations first to lobby that insuring their employees has become too high of a cost to them. At this point most employers would rather get the money used for their healthcare and have it put into their paychecks. Smaller companies will follow them.

Currently they cannot deny healthcare with or without insurance at least for emergency situations. The people will have leverage if the employer is out of the picture on lowering costs. The government is not in a position to insured 160 million people now or ever.

Without insurance companies in the way, doctors and hospitals will have to go back to like it was before the 80's insurance takeover of healthcare and they will have no choice but to bring costs down if they want business from us.

I really don't want our government to be the single payer system since they have shown total irresponsibility with the one they have now. We have to come up with a better system that has in place how much they are allowed to profit that is much more cost effective and practical.

If people do not stand up to this mandate, it will break us all financially with little chance of recovering from it in the years to come. This is the next economic crisisr in our future.

 

[lynn63]

Having worked in the Heath Care Industry for 10 years, I frankly disagree with your assessment. PPACA is designed for one thing and that is to make the system fail and usher in the single payer.

That has been the Progressive goal since FDR.

Yes.

In 2001, my wife was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Ten months later she lost her battle. Total cost of her treatment and care during that ten months was over $1.3 million. That was over ten years ago. The average home sells for around $250,000. That is five homes paid off, for treatment of a cancer that didn't save her life in the end, and it was just for ten months of treatment. There just is no logic to what we are paying for healthcare.

I am sorry for your loss. You mentioned total cost of treatment was 1.3 million dollars. What did your insurance allow on those charges since they never would approve 1.3 million to pay their percentage?

 

[Flopper]

To think that that the patient will question and evaluate cost is ridiculous.

If they're spending their own money, it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. That's the problem with the situation we have now: when it comes to health care, most people aren't spending their own money.

If all healthcare providers were paid by the patient, not by insurance, not by Medicare, not by Medicaid, or any other method that takes the responsibility off the patient, then yes healthcare cost would fall dramatically and deaths would rise dramatically.

We want to encourage people to use low cost healthcare available from their family doctor, to make sure small problems don't become big problems. Putting the responsibility on the patient does just the opposite.

 

[Underhill]

To think that that the patient will question and evaluate cost is ridiculous.

If they're spending their own money, it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. That's the problem with the situation we have now: when it comes to health care, most people aren't spending their own money.

If all healthcare providers were paid by the patient, not by insurance, not by Medicare, not by Medicaid, or any other method that takes the responsibility off the patient, then yes healthcare cost would fall dramatically and deaths would rise dramatically.

We want to encourage people to use low cost healthcare available from their family doctor, to make sure small problems don't become big problems. Putting the responsibility on the patient does just the opposite.

Exactly right. Cost would fall for many of the same reasons as for single payer. Less paperwork, no claims to fill out, no billing. No middlemen all getting their cut. Not to mention cost controls could act effectively in the same way as consumers paying directly, putting the brakes on overcharging wherever it may happen.

 

[dblack]

If they're spending their own money, it's ridiculous to assume otherwise. That's the problem with the situation we have now: when it comes to health care, most people aren't spending their own money.

If all healthcare providers were paid by the patient, not by insurance, not by Medicare, not by Medicaid, or any other method that takes the responsibility off the patient, then yes healthcare cost would fall dramatically and deaths would rise dramatically.

We want to encourage people to use low cost healthcare available from their family doctor, to make sure small problems don't become big problems. Putting the responsibility on the patient does just the opposite.

Exactly right. Cost would fall for many of the same reasons as for single payer. Less paperwork, no claims to fill out, no billing. No middlemen all getting their cut. Not to mention cost controls could act effectively in the same way as consumers paying directly, putting the brakes on overcharging wherever it may happen.

Sheer delusion. Think about what you are saying - making people even less responsible for their own health care will make them more prudent in their use of health care services? Really? How in the world do you imagine that that will work?

It's like you guys see the cliff up ahead and just want to mash on the gas instead of applying the brakes. Are you imagining we'll jump the chasm or something?

 

[Underhill]

If all healthcare providers were paid by the patient, not by insurance, not by Medicare, not by Medicaid, or any other method that takes the responsibility off the patient, then yes healthcare cost would fall dramatically and deaths would rise dramatically.

We want to encourage people to use low cost healthcare available from their family doctor, to make sure small problems don't become big problems. Putting the responsibility on the patient does just the opposite.

Exactly right. Cost would fall for many of the same reasons as for single payer. Less paperwork, no claims to fill out, no billing. No middlemen all getting their cut. Not to mention cost controls could act effectively in the same way as consumers paying directly, putting the brakes on overcharging wherever it may happen.

Sheer delusion. Think about what you are saying - making people even less responsible for their own health care will make them more prudent in their use of health care services? Really? How in the world do you imagine that that will work?

It's like you guys see the cliff up ahead and just want to mash on the gas instead of applying the brakes. Are you imagining we'll jump the chasm or something?

I actually never said anything like that. Reread what I actually said and respond to that and we'll talk.

 

[dblack]

Exactly right. Cost would fall for many of the same reasons as for single payer. Less paperwork, no claims to fill out, no billing. No middlemen all getting their cut. Not to mention cost controls could act effectively in the same way as consumers paying directly, putting the brakes on overcharging wherever it may happen.

Sheer delusion. Think about what you are saying - making people even less responsible for their own health care will make them more prudent in their use of health care services? Really? How in the world do you imagine that that will work?

It's like you guys see the cliff up ahead and just want to mash on the gas instead of applying the brakes. Are you imagining we'll jump the chasm or something?

I actually never said anything like that. Reread what I actually said and respond to that and we'll talk.

Well, you were cheering for Flopper's statement: "We want to encourage people to use low cost healthcare available from their family doctor, to make sure small problems don't become big problems. Putting the responsibility on the patient does just the opposite." This is, essentially, doubling down on the decades-long campaign to make people less and less responsible for the costs of their own health care. I just don't see any logic in the view that this will bring down costs. In fact, I see it as the principle cause of health care inflation - the reason routine health care is so expensive is that so many us aren't paying for it.

Putting more of the responsibility on the patient is exactly what needs to happen.

 

[Flopper]

If all healthcare providers were paid by the patient, not by insurance, not by Medicare, not by Medicaid, or any other method that takes the responsibility off the patient, then yes healthcare cost would fall dramatically and deaths would rise dramatically.

We want to encourage people to use low cost healthcare available from their family doctor, to make sure small problems don't become big problems. Putting the responsibility on the patient does just the opposite.

Exactly right. Cost would fall for many of the same reasons as for single payer. Less paperwork, no claims to fill out, no billing. No middlemen all getting their cut. Not to mention cost controls could act effectively in the same way as consumers paying directly, putting the brakes on overcharging wherever it may happen.

Sheer delusion. Think about what you are saying - making people even less responsible for their own health care will make them more prudent in their use of health care services? Really? How in the world do you imagine that that will work?

It's like you guys see the cliff up ahead and just want to mash on the gas instead of applying the brakes. Are you imagining we'll jump the chasm or something?

No, I want to see people take more responsibility for their healthcare, by going to the doctor with those minor chest pains before it's a massive heart attack. I what to see cancers diagnosed before they spread and turn a few thousand dollars in medical costs in hundreds of thousands. If you make it more expensive for people to use low cost medical care, people will use less of it, which ultimately increases medical costs.

 

[Underhill]

Exactly right. Cost would fall for many of the same reasons as for single payer. Less paperwork, no claims to fill out, no billing. No middlemen all getting their cut. Not to mention cost controls could act effectively in the same way as consumers paying directly, putting the brakes on overcharging wherever it may happen.

Sheer delusion. Think about what you are saying - making people even less responsible for their own health care will make them more prudent in their use of health care services? Really? How in the world do you imagine that that will work?

It's like you guys see the cliff up ahead and just want to mash on the gas instead of applying the brakes. Are you imagining we'll jump the chasm or something?

No, I want to see people take more responsibility for their healthcare, by going to the doctor with those minor chest pains before it's a massive heart attack. I what to see cancers diagnosed before they spread and turn a few thousand dollars in medical costs in hundreds of thousands. If you make it more expensive for people to use low cost medical care, people will use less of it, which ultimately increases medical costs.

Exactly.

Studies have shown that laying more of the cost, thus the responsibility, on individuals simply means they cost us more in the long run. This is why most insurers today allow free checkups and testing for common problems. It saves them money.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, there's no evidence that it does save money.

 

[Flopper]

Sheer delusion. Think about what you are saying - making people even less responsible for their own health care will make them more prudent in their use of health care services? Really? How in the world do you imagine that that will work?

It's like you guys see the cliff up ahead and just want to mash on the gas instead of applying the brakes. Are you imagining we'll jump the chasm or something?

I actually never said anything like that. Reread what I actually said and respond to that and we'll talk.

Well, you were cheering for Flopper's statement: "We want to encourage people to use low cost healthcare available from their family doctor, to make sure small problems don't become big problems. Putting the responsibility on the patient does just the opposite." This is, essentially, doubling down on the decades-long campaign to make people less and less responsible for the costs of their own health care. I just don't see any logic in the view that this will bring down costs. In fact, I see it as the principle cause of health care inflation - the reason routine health care is so expensive is that so many us aren't paying for it.

Putting more of the responsibility on the patient is exactly what needs to happen.

Routine medical care through your family doctor is not where the major cost increases are. These costs are rising only about 1.3%/year. 50% of the cost increases of medicare care can be traced to the use of new technologies and improved current technologies such as, CT scanners, robotic surgery, hemodialysis, organ transplants, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, specialized cancer treatments, and thousands of new procedures, devices, and treatments that are saving lives. Do you really believe access to these new technologies should be based on the ability of a patient to pay? Those with adequate financial resources live and those without die.

 

[koshergrl]

Link?