Why Does Health Care in the U.S. Cost So Much?

[Common Sense]

So your response to my criticism of your post isn't to defend what you've written but spew invective (that means insults, because your 4th grade education doesn't cut it).
figures. The bigger the pig, the louder they squeal.

Edited-No Family Attacks.

i dont have to defend anything to you. you offer no solutions. once again the retarded rabbi still cant make a point.

I've negged rep you for your idiotic post. I reported it as a violation of TOS. And now I'm putting your worthless ass on Iggy because you obviously cannot debate or form a coherent thought.
My only regret is that it took me several pages to figure that out.

hahaha whaaaaaa. you still offer nothing substantial to this conversation retard. go back and cry to the moderator because you cant defend yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Edited-No Family Attacks.

i dont have to defend anything to you. you offer no solutions. once again the retarded rabbi still cant make a point.

I've negged rep you for your idiotic post. I reported it as a violation of TOS. And now I'm putting your worthless ass on Iggy because you obviously cannot debate or form a coherent thought.
My only regret is that it took me several pages to figure that out.

hahaha whaaaaaa. you still offer nothing substantial to this conversation retard. go back and cry to the moderator because you cant defend yourself.

And THIS is your idea of "substantial"?

 

[Common Sense]

Typical. Make no effort to calrify exactly what you're talking about, but demand that people "offer solutions" to your vague, undefined tripe, anyway.

way to show up to the party late without reading any of the other 7 pages of posts.

Way to respond without reading my OTHER posts, dipwad. I've already said that I'm asking for clarification BECAUSE everyone seems to be switching back and forth between the two possible topics, which leads to nothing but confusion.

Now, would you like to tell me which one YOU are talking about, or would you just like to continue pointlessly shouting for solutions to a problem you flatly refuse to define?

you apparently did not read any of my posts about making providers and insurers non profits. thus forcing them to drive those monies back into the system to lower costs. such as kaiser does.

(its not the only thing they do to streamline costs. such as both owning and operating hospitals and health clinics instead of letting a 3rd party do that. which then again drives up the cost of services)

 

[Greenbeard]

Your whole post is an error wrapped in a misapprehension clothed in a lie.

You said 30% of health care costs can be attributed to defensive medicine, i.e. unnecessary care offered only to protect doctors from liability. You say tort reform has been successful in Texas because malpractice insurance premiums are down. Obviously shielding providers from liability will lower their malpractice insurance premiums. But unless you want to revise your post to say 30% of costs is attributable to malpractice insurance premiums, you have to show that the volume of unnecessary care has dropped. Otherwise the criteria you've laid out for defining success differ from the outcomes you've cited.

Do you have any personal explanatioon as to why tort reform was not included in the law? It may not decrease costs dramatically, but it is naive to think it would not decrease costs.

I don't have a personal explanation but I suspect the reality is simple: no one who views malpractice reform as a top priority ever realistically offered their vote in exchange for that provision. You don't get to shape legislation if you don't intend to support it. You can find anecdotes like this one that illustrate the point:

When Barack Obama informed congressional Republicans last month that he would support a controversial parliamentary move to protect health-care reform from a filibuster in the Senate, they were furious. That meant the bill could pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, eliminating the need for any GOP support. Where, they demanded, was the bipartisanship the President had promised? So, right there in the Cabinet Room, the President put a proposal on the table, according to two people who were present. Obama said he was willing to curb malpractice awards, a move long sought by Republicans that is certain to bring strong opposition from the trial lawyers who fund the Democratic Party.

What, he wanted to know, did the Republicans have to offer in return?

Nothing, it turned out. Republicans were unprepared to make any concessions, if they had any to make. But the encounter did make some Democrats wish they could see more of that kind of presidential engagement on the issue that Obama says is his top legislative priority.​

The reality is that Republicans could have gotten substantially more of whatever it is they want if they ever presented themselves as serious negotiating partners. The only Republican who bothered to do that was Olympia Snowe, who never ruled out voting for the Senate Finance Committee's bill in committee (in fact she ultimately did end up voting for it in committee). And she got lots of concessions on that legislation during the mark-up as a result. Funny how that works.

In the end, tort reform appears in the law only as seed money states could use to test out and experiment with their own state-based malpractice reform efforts.

Do you get a "Docfax" when you see a new DR?
Telling how many procedures he has performed and how man successes, etc?
Their professional history?

That's actually not too far off. For the past few years, doctors who treat Medicare patients have been able to get incentive payments if they participate in the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, reporting on various quality metrics. This program was extended by ACA and CMS will be launching a website soon that will allow you to compare (participating) physicians along those quality metrics:

By Jan. 1, 2011, CMS will be required under the federal health reform law to launch a website that would allow consumers to compare physicians based on factors such as quality, performance and patient experiences, Government Health IT reports.

The Physician Compare website is expected to be modeled after CMS' Hospital Compare website, which allows consumers to compare hospitals using similar criteria.

According to CMS, the website initially will include information about physicians who participate in the Medicare program and those who participate in the agency's Physician Quality Reporting System.

Regina Reymann Chell -- a health insurance specialist at the CMS Office of Clinical Standards and Quality -- said the agency will use data from its directory of Medicare providers as the foundation of the new Physician Compare website.

Beginning in January 2013, the Physician Compare site will include physician performance data based on quality reporting survey information gathered in 2012.​

 

[Common Sense]

thank you for offering actual insight into this argument. now we can wait for the rabbi to simply say. NO! and spout nonsense about the viable points you have made.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your whole post is an error wrapped in a misapprehension clothed in a lie.

You said 30% of health care costs can be attributed to defensive medicine, i.e. unnecessary care offered only to protect doctors from liability. You say tort reform has been successful in Texas because malpractice insurance premiums are down. Obviously shielding providers from liability will lower their malpractice insurance premiums. But unless you want to revise your post to say 30% of costs is attributable to malpractice insurance premiums, you have to show that the volume of unnecessary care has dropped. Otherwise the criteria you've laid out for defining success differ from the outcomes you've cited.

Not really. Of course classifying a particular test as merely "defensive" would be next to impossible. So finding a study documenting the practice will be impossible. But everyone does it. And everyone knows it goes on.
And reducing this would depend on the nature of tort reform. There is not a single reform that prevents a physician from getting sued. So they are ineffective in reducing the cost of defensive medicine. But they were effective in reducing premiums and inducing physicians to come practice in the state. That was the experience in MS and TX.

 

[Cecilie1200]

way to show up to the party late without reading any of the other 7 pages of posts.

Way to respond without reading my OTHER posts, dipwad. I've already said that I'm asking for clarification BECAUSE everyone seems to be switching back and forth between the two possible topics, which leads to nothing but confusion.

Now, would you like to tell me which one YOU are talking about, or would you just like to continue pointlessly shouting for solutions to a problem you flatly refuse to define?

you apparently did not read any of my posts about making providers and insurers non profits. thus forcing them to drive those monies back into the system to lower costs. such as kaiser does.

(its not the only thing they do to streamline costs. such as both owning and operating hospitals and health clinics instead of letting a 3rd party do that. which then again drives up the cost of services)

I read it, and wow, it didn't answer my fucking question, just like THIS waste of Internet space doesn't answer my question. Do I need to draw you a picture, or just beat you about the head and shoulders with a blunt object? What, precisely, would get you to answer my very, very simple question, ie. "What sort of health care cost are you talking about? The price of procedures, or the amount of money spent on healthcare annually?"

 

[The Rabbi]

Way to respond without reading my OTHER posts, dipwad. I've already said that I'm asking for clarification BECAUSE everyone seems to be switching back and forth between the two possible topics, which leads to nothing but confusion.

Now, would you like to tell me which one YOU are talking about, or would you just like to continue pointlessly shouting for solutions to a problem you flatly refuse to define?

you apparently did not read any of my posts about making providers and insurers non profits. thus forcing them to drive those monies back into the system to lower costs. such as kaiser does.

(its not the only thing they do to streamline costs. such as both owning and operating hospitals and health clinics instead of letting a 3rd party do that. which then again drives up the cost of services)

I read it, and wow, it didn't answer my fucking question, just like THIS waste of Internet space doesn't answer my question. Do I need to draw you a picture, or just beat you about the head and shoulders with a blunt object? What, precisely, would get you to answer my very, very simple question, ie. "What sort of health care cost are you talking about? The price of procedures, or the amount of money spent on healthcare annually?"

Are you including insurance premiums in that figure?
Don't bother waiting for an answer from ColonScents because he aint got any.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

actually these are the plans available to the consumer on their website that most closely match each other. since no 2 insurers actually offer the same exact plans an exact comparison is impossible. but a comparison of similar plans provides a good overview.

Yawn. Got anything substantive? Nah, I didnt think so either.

good job, your slogan should be: The Rabbi - continuing to contribute nothing to society but stupidity since birth

every time I call these people douche bags I am in danger of veing called for mentioning family.

 

[Cuyo]

Your whole post is an error wrapped in a misapprehension clothed in a lie.

You said 30% of health care costs can be attributed to defensive medicine, i.e. unnecessary care offered only to protect doctors from liability. You say tort reform has been successful in Texas because malpractice insurance premiums are down. Obviously shielding providers from liability will lower their malpractice insurance premiums. But unless you want to revise your post to say 30% of costs is attributable to malpractice insurance premiums, you have to show that the volume of unnecessary care has dropped. Otherwise the criteria you've laid out for defining success differ from the outcomes you've cited.

Not really. Of course classifying a particular test as merely "defensive" would be next to impossible. So finding a study documenting the practice will be impossible. But everyone does it. And everyone knows it goes on.
And reducing this would depend on the nature of tort reform. There is not a single reform that prevents a physician from getting sued. So they are ineffective in reducing the cost of defensive medicine. But they were effective in reducing premiums and inducing physicians to come practice in the state. That was the experience in MS and TX.

Doctors tend to get sued when an unintended consequence of treatment occurs, eg death, dismemberment, mis-diagnosis, or simple failure to produce the intended result. Your argument is that doctors waste too much time on tests to shield themselves from lawsuits due to these unintended consequences (Ergo, preventing the patient from experiencing death, dismemberment, mis-diagnosis, or simple failure to produce the intended result). So, in "Protecting themselves from a lawsuit," they're really protecting their patient from the aforementioned scenarios.

In a nutshell, the right's answer to reducing costs is in reducing the consumers remedy when the doctor fucks up, to protect the doctor and insurance companies, with the hopes that just MAYBE they'll pass some of that additional profit onto the consumer. In addition to the fact that the reduction in cost is insubstantial and it does nothing to get more people insured, it creates a moral hazard and sends an abhorrent message to the healthcare community.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you apparently did not read any of my posts about making providers and insurers non profits. thus forcing them to drive those monies back into the system to lower costs. such as kaiser does.

(its not the only thing they do to streamline costs. such as both owning and operating hospitals and health clinics instead of letting a 3rd party do that. which then again drives up the cost of services)

I read it, and wow, it didn't answer my fucking question, just like THIS waste of Internet space doesn't answer my question. Do I need to draw you a picture, or just beat you about the head and shoulders with a blunt object? What, precisely, would get you to answer my very, very simple question, ie. "What sort of health care cost are you talking about? The price of procedures, or the amount of money spent on healthcare annually?"

Are you including insurance premiums in that figure?
Don't bother waiting for an answer from ColonScents because he aint got any.

In which figure? And I'M not including it in anything. I'm asking which figures someone ELSE is using.

It's next to impossible to discuss this topic, simply because leftists refuse to nail down EXACTLY what the problem is that they're bitching about and demanding to know our solutions to. They do it deliberately, so they can slip-slide back and forth between howling over the costs of doctor visits and screeching about the total amount spent in the US on healthcare. If you can get them to answer this question at all, they try to pretend it's all the same problem.

 

[uscitizen]

Again why not do away with the non bargaining clause for prescription medicine prices in medicare part d.

or is competition not allowed in the medical industry?

 

[The Rabbi]

Again why not do away with the non bargaining clause for prescription medicine prices in medicare part d.

or is competition not allowed in the medical industry?

BEcause a monopsony is not competition.

 

[The Rabbi]

I read it, and wow, it didn't answer my fucking question, just like THIS waste of Internet space doesn't answer my question. Do I need to draw you a picture, or just beat you about the head and shoulders with a blunt object? What, precisely, would get you to answer my very, very simple question, ie. "What sort of health care cost are you talking about? The price of procedures, or the amount of money spent on healthcare annually?"

Are you including insurance premiums in that figure?
Don't bother waiting for an answer from ColonScents because he aint got any.

In which figure? And I'M not including it in anything. I'm asking which figures someone ELSE is using.

It's next to impossible to discuss this topic, simply because leftists refuse to nail down EXACTLY what the problem is that they're bitching about and demanding to know our solutions to. They do it deliberately, so they can slip-slide back and forth between howling over the costs of doctor visits and screeching about the total amount spent in the US on healthcare. If you can get them to answer this question at all, they try to pretend it's all the same problem.

They can't nail anything down because if you look at each aspect of the problem (high and rising health care costs) the solutions are invariably what conservatives have been pushing. Nothing else makes any sense. Third party payers? Oh, Obamacare is almost the ultimate 3rd party payer. It isn't a solution, it is a problem.
But the left can't admit that. So they scream BIG CORPORATE PROFITS. Never mind tehre are no big corporate profits or even that big corporate profits would indicate they are doing a good job (hint: good companies like Apple make money. Shitty companies like GM don't.).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is Rabbi still spouting his bullshit?

 

[Cuyo]

Are you including insurance premiums in that figure?
Don't bother waiting for an answer from ColonScents because he aint got any.

In which figure? And I'M not including it in anything. I'm asking which figures someone ELSE is using.

It's next to impossible to discuss this topic, simply because leftists refuse to nail down EXACTLY what the problem is that they're bitching about and demanding to know our solutions to. They do it deliberately, so they can slip-slide back and forth between howling over the costs of doctor visits and screeching about the total amount spent in the US on healthcare. If you can get them to answer this question at all, they try to pretend it's all the same problem.

They can't nail anything down because if you look at each aspect of the problem (high and rising health care costs) the solutions are invariably what conservatives have been pushing. Nothing else makes any sense. Third party payers? Oh, Obamacare is almost the ultimate 3rd party payer. It isn't a solution, it is a problem.
But the left can't admit that. So they scream BIG CORPORATE PROFITS. Never mind tehre are no big corporate profits or even that big corporate profits would indicate they are doing a good job (hint: good companies like Apple make money. Shitty companies like GM don't.).

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In which figure? And I'M not including it in anything. I'm asking which figures someone ELSE is using.

It's next to impossible to discuss this topic, simply because leftists refuse to nail down EXACTLY what the problem is that they're bitching about and demanding to know our solutions to. They do it deliberately, so they can slip-slide back and forth between howling over the costs of doctor visits and screeching about the total amount spent in the US on healthcare. If you can get them to answer this question at all, they try to pretend it's all the same problem.

They can't nail anything down because if you look at each aspect of the problem (high and rising health care costs) the solutions are invariably what conservatives have been pushing. Nothing else makes any sense. Third party payers? Oh, Obamacare is almost the ultimate 3rd party payer. It isn't a solution, it is a problem.
But the left can't admit that. So they scream BIG CORPORATE PROFITS. Never mind tehre are no big corporate profits or even that big corporate profits would indicate they are doing a good job (hint: good companies like Apple make money. Shitty companies like GM don't.).

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

And you're STILL avoiding telling us WHICH problem you want to discuss. Hmmm.

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And then we rush right into the spin, where you try to scream, "Crisis!!!" about a problem you still haven't defined, so that you can push your own agenda onto people.

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

Ahh, yes, the ubiquitous leftist "good intentions", over which we're all supposed to fall down in awe and reverence. Too bad for you that my mother told me which road is paved with good intentions.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

Depends. Which problem was it you wanted proposals about, again? You seem to have forgotten to tell us.

 

[Cuyo]

The Symptom - Medical costs too high and rising faster than inflation.

The Problem causing the symptom - Pick your pony.

I shouldn't have to lay this out for you, but I will.

The argument we've been having is whether or not TORT REFORM is an adequate angle to approach for reducing overall medical costs. Most recently I've pointed out that not only does it fail to address the symptom (Premiums would only be decreased by 0.5-2% depending on who you ask), but that "Lawsuit defense" is in fact, patient defense. What's good for the patient is good for the doctor in the vacuum of whether or not that doctor is going to get sued.

So I have addressed the Rabbi's suggestion and asked a simple question, which is basically to ask the Rabbi, or you, or anyone who wants to answer: DO WE AGREE that too many uninsured are a problem? When uninsured arrive at the hospital ER and receive a bill they will never ever be able to pay, WHO pays for it? Say it's severe pneumonia and the patient has to stay in the hospital for a week. Wouldn't it have been cheaper if that patient had access to a primary care doctor when it was just bronchitis? What does a generic Z-pack cost these days?

There are a number of "Problems," darling. Predatory medicine, lack of competition in big pharma, doctors saddled with 6-figures of debt when leaving med school, I can go on. But right now, this is the one I'd like to discuss, if it pleases the court. Is too many uninsured a problem of significant enough magnitude that it deserves addressing, YES or NO.

Or perhaps you just think those who are uninsured and unable to pay should simply be denied services - Even if it means their death. If you do feel that way, the "TRUE" laissez-faire free-market way, please spit it out. I'm yet, however, to find a righty to make that proclamation.

 

[JFK_USA]

Its not because of lawsuits. Lots of lawsuit "tort reform" actually rewards bad doctors by getting them off too easy.

The FDA needs to be involved, not the free market. People dying is not right and the free market will determine to set up an unbiased testing facility to see if these drugs actually work.

The pharmaceutical companies would stranglehold prescriptions for $150/bottle that literally can be produced for only $3/bottle. Generics need to be available for all. You know the biggest drawback you hear is "Well then they won't invest in research."

Fact is many of these companies get grants from the government to do research. It really doesn't cost them as much as they say. Look at their profits, they are not hurting.

At the end of the day, we have the most inefficient system ever. If I worked in Detroit, I would live in Windsor, Ontario just forthe healthcare and obvious better quality of life just across the river.

 

[The Rabbi]

In which figure? And I'M not including it in anything. I'm asking which figures someone ELSE is using.

It's next to impossible to discuss this topic, simply because leftists refuse to nail down EXACTLY what the problem is that they're bitching about and demanding to know our solutions to. They do it deliberately, so they can slip-slide back and forth between howling over the costs of doctor visits and screeching about the total amount spent in the US on healthcare. If you can get them to answer this question at all, they try to pretend it's all the same problem.

They can't nail anything down because if you look at each aspect of the problem (high and rising health care costs) the solutions are invariably what conservatives have been pushing. Nothing else makes any sense. Third party payers? Oh, Obamacare is almost the ultimate 3rd party payer. It isn't a solution, it is a problem.
But the left can't admit that. So they scream BIG CORPORATE PROFITS. Never mind tehre are no big corporate profits or even that big corporate profits would indicate they are doing a good job (hint: good companies like Apple make money. Shitty companies like GM don't.).

OK, so what is the problem? What causes the high and rising health care costs?

Can you at least muster up the honesty to admit that TOO MANY UNINSURED are a predominant problem? Probably the single biggest problem?

And that was the aim of what you so affectionately call "Obamacare-" To get more people insured. You focus on the inconsequential quid-pro-quo nonsense, while ignoring the fact that it will insure an additional 30 million while REDUCING the deficit. I'm not thrilled with the bill either, but it's a lot better passed than un-passed.

So besides the strawman tort reform, what do you propose?

Too many uninsured are not the problem, certainly not the biggest problem. Most people who end up in the emergency room have health insurance. Heritage.org and the Wall St Journal debunked this particular myth. Yes, there are uninsured people. No it is not a crisis. No it did not require a $1T excruciating health care overhaul to deal with.
Part of the "problem" is simply that healthcare is much better than it was even 20 years ago. There is lots of innovation and progress in the field. Better quality costs more. Hindering those advances are a stultifying American bureaucracy, which adds to costs.
But the biggest problem is the third party payer system we have. People will good plans will use them all the time. This has been established as fact. There is no individual responsibility on spending so people tend to see healthcare as a free good and use it accordingly.. This drives up costs. Add in other factors like high malpractice premiums and poor lifestyle choices and it makes for a very expensive system.