Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

I am officially distubed by the truth of U.S healthcare.

Page 15 of 20 [ 305 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 20  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Aug 2011, 1:01 pm

number5 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
If a government run health insurance program has to ration care, at least it doesn't have an incentive to try and make money by hiding the fact.


But the government cannot control its costs. So it will eventually have to ration health care to prevent political blow back. It is either that or raise taxes. You guess what the government will do. We will end up like Britain with the National Health Care Program.

ruveyn


And why is that a bad thing? The UK system outperforms ours by every standard (quality, access, cost, efficiency, etc.). It's not like insurance never raise premiums. So what if taxes are raised, it would still cost us less out of pocket. Just think about how over half of our pharmaceutical industry's income goes towards marketing and promotion. Right there - that's at least a 50% savings. That's not even counting the multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses for individuals at the top of the chain.


True.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

10 Aug 2011, 1:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
If a government run health insurance program has to ration care, at least it doesn't have an incentive to try and make money by hiding the fact.


But the government cannot control its costs. So it will eventually have to ration health care to prevent political blow back. It is either that or raise taxes. You guess what the government will do. We will end up like Britain with the National Health Care Program.

ruveyn


So what. At least a government health insurance program will not be deliberately trying to hoodwink people into thinking they are getting a better deal than they really are.

Also, the private healthcare system cannot control its costs either and since businesses are expected to pay for coverage, the private health care system is hurting the economy as a whole.



mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

10 Aug 2011, 1:03 pm

number5 wrote:
mcg wrote:
number5 wrote:
Who said anything about poor people? Most middle-class families could not afford these types of routine care. You appear to be clueless about actual medical expenses. The average annual out-of-pocket expenses for an uninsured diabetic can easily exceed $20K. Asthma is around the $3K mark. Pregnancy is around $8K for low-risk and substantially higher for high-risk. Dialysis costs around $2500 initially and then about $500 each subsequent treatment which is usually needed about 3 times/week. How many middle-class families can afford $6000/month for dialysis?!
Look buddy, the argument that average middle-class American's would not be able to afford basic healthcare without insurance is completely bunk. They already do it. On average, your insurance company does not insure you at a loss. It is still you paying the bill (along with your insurance company's overhead). And anyways, if a medical procedure were truly bankrupting, then it would be surely be covered by insurance policies.

number5 wrote:
And, out of curiosity, how would you deal with poor people separately?
Instead of a forcing us all into a one-size-fits-all solution that does little to reduce the insane price of healthcare (a single payer could fandangle slightly lower prices through increased bargaining power, but it would still be third party payment), just let the government pay for only the people who can't afford the care they need. You know, like we do for food.


I don't even know where to start with this silliness. Which part is bunk? Are Americans immune to illnesses like diabetes? Are you contesting the costs? Are you claiming medical bankruptcies are non-existent here? Are you seriously naive enough to think that the consumer's potential hardship due to claim denial even factors into the insurance companies decision process at all?

What do you mean insurance doesn't provide coverage at a loss? That's exactly what they are supposed to do should illness or injury occur. If you're covered and you get cancer or get pregnant, it's a sure thin that you claims will exceed your premiums, assuming insurance doesn't deny the claim - which they are not supposed to do. Same with all other insurance. Life, auto, home - if there's a loss insurance is supposed to cover that loss. You could have a million dollar life insurance policy and even if you die within a few years and only pay in a few thousand bucks, insurance still pays out the full million.

Where on earth have you been getting these ides from? :?
The average American pays more in premiums than the insurance company pays out in benefits. That's how they make their money. I am advocating restructuring this payment scheme so that stuff that is basically a sure thing is not payed for by a third party. I am not saying that "potential hardship due to claim denial even factors into the insurance companies decision process" (insurance companies insure you per the terms of your contract). I am saying that insurance companies would still insure against unlikely events that would cause financial hardship (not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because there would be consumer demand for such policies).

If you think that I claiming that Americans do not get sick or that healthcare is currently not extremely expensive, then you completely misunderstand my argument.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

10 Aug 2011, 1:50 pm

mcg wrote:
number5 wrote:
mcg wrote:
number5 wrote:
Who said anything about poor people? Most middle-class families could not afford these types of routine care. You appear to be clueless about actual medical expenses. The average annual out-of-pocket expenses for an uninsured diabetic can easily exceed $20K. Asthma is around the $3K mark. Pregnancy is around $8K for low-risk and substantially higher for high-risk. Dialysis costs around $2500 initially and then about $500 each subsequent treatment which is usually needed about 3 times/week. How many middle-class families can afford $6000/month for dialysis?!
Look buddy, the argument that average middle-class American's would not be able to afford basic healthcare without insurance is completely bunk. They already do it. On average, your insurance company does not insure you at a loss. It is still you paying the bill (along with your insurance company's overhead). And anyways, if a medical procedure were truly bankrupting, then it would be surely be covered by insurance policies.

number5 wrote:
And, out of curiosity, how would you deal with poor people separately?
Instead of a forcing us all into a one-size-fits-all solution that does little to reduce the insane price of healthcare (a single payer could fandangle slightly lower prices through increased bargaining power, but it would still be third party payment), just let the government pay for only the people who can't afford the care they need. You know, like we do for food.


I don't even know where to start with this silliness. Which part is bunk? Are Americans immune to illnesses like diabetes? Are you contesting the costs? Are you claiming medical bankruptcies are non-existent here? Are you seriously naive enough to think that the consumer's potential hardship due to claim denial even factors into the insurance companies decision process at all?

What do you mean insurance doesn't provide coverage at a loss? That's exactly what they are supposed to do should illness or injury occur. If you're covered and you get cancer or get pregnant, it's a sure thin that you claims will exceed your premiums, assuming insurance doesn't deny the claim - which they are not supposed to do. Same with all other insurance. Life, auto, home - if there's a loss insurance is supposed to cover that loss. You could have a million dollar life insurance policy and even if you die within a few years and only pay in a few thousand bucks, insurance still pays out the full million.

Where on earth have you been getting these ides from? :?
The average American pays more in premiums than the insurance company pays out in benefits. That's how they make their money. I am advocating restructuring this payment scheme so that stuff that is basically a sure thing is not payed for by a third party. I am not saying that "potential hardship due to claim denial even factors into the insurance companies decision process" (insurance companies insure you per the terms of your contract). I am saying that insurance companies would still insure against unlikely events that would cause financial hardship (not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because there would be consumer demand for such policies).

If you think that I claiming that Americans do not get sick or that healthcare is currently not extremely expensive, then you completely misunderstand my argument.


Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, but now it seems like you'd approve of a system that pays out on a services-needed basis vs. an insurance system and each individual's need is determined by income. This way, no one is burdened by medical care they can't afford, and healthy folks just go on keeping their cash for themselves. Hmmm, sounds nice. Where can I sign up?

Oh wait, but who would pay for the needed services that meet the unaffordable standard? Would the government pay for this? There would need to be an awful lot of tax revenue to cover those expenses. Who should contribute to this revenue? Should it be the ones receiving benefits - the same people who can't afford the needed care in the first place? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe wealthier Americans should chip in. But then, it's totally not fair for them to be paying into a system for which they receive no benefit.

Which brings us to a more sensible idea. Why not have everyone chip in a bit and allow everyone to benefit? There's certainly no guarantee that a healthy person will stay healthy anyway. We can even adjust the bit that everyone has to chip it so that it's affordable for everyone. This is precisely what most other, more civilized countries do.

Apologies if I'm still not getting it. Perhaps you could clarify further?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Aug 2011, 4:37 pm

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
If a government run health insurance program has to ration care, at least it doesn't have an incentive to try and make money by hiding the fact.


But the government cannot control its costs. So it will eventually have to ration health care to prevent political blow back. It is either that or raise taxes. You guess what the government will do. We will end up like Britain with the National Health Care Program.

ruveyn


So what. At least a government health insurance program will not be deliberately trying to hoodwink people into thinking they are getting a better deal than they really are.

Also, the private healthcare system cannot control its costs either and since businesses are expected to pay for coverage, the private health care system is hurting the economy as a whole.


If we get Gov Care you can bet the Rich Enough will buy their medical care in the private market.

The rest of us will wait six months for an MRI scan and get ten minute examinations "for free" at the State Run medical office.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Aug 2011, 4:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
If a government run health insurance program has to ration care, at least it doesn't have an incentive to try and make money by hiding the fact.


But the government cannot control its costs. So it will eventually have to ration health care to prevent political blow back. It is either that or raise taxes. You guess what the government will do. We will end up like Britain with the National Health Care Program.

ruveyn


So what. At least a government health insurance program will not be deliberately trying to hoodwink people into thinking they are getting a better deal than they really are.

Also, the private healthcare system cannot control its costs either and since businesses are expected to pay for coverage, the private health care system is hurting the economy as a whole.


If we get Gov Care you can bet the Rich Enough will buy their medical care in the private market.

The rest of us will wait six months for an MRI scan and get ten minute examinations "for free" at the State Run medical office.

ruveyn


Because you are an expert on how universal health care works in other countries.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

10 Aug 2011, 5:11 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
If a government run health insurance program has to ration care, at least it doesn't have an incentive to try and make money by hiding the fact.


But the government cannot control its costs. So it will eventually have to ration health care to prevent political blow back. It is either that or raise taxes. You guess what the government will do. We will end up like Britain with the National Health Care Program.

ruveyn


So what. At least a government health insurance program will not be deliberately trying to hoodwink people into thinking they are getting a better deal than they really are.

Also, the private healthcare system cannot control its costs either and since businesses are expected to pay for coverage, the private health care system is hurting the economy as a whole.


If we get Gov Care you can bet the Rich Enough will buy their medical care in the private market.

The rest of us will wait six months for an MRI scan and get ten minute examinations "for free" at the State Run medical office.

ruveyn


You get more than 10 minutes out of private doctors now? wow.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

10 Aug 2011, 7:07 pm

i enjoy a couple of hours of state paid medical services a week and while supply and demand does have an effect on waiting time that also hits the private halth sector in denmark,
in reality private clinics here are mostly plastic surgery, laser eye correction and similar, the real hospital work done by private clinics are either people with an "extended" health insurance or overflow from the public system.

private hospitals in denmark have a higher percentage of malpractice lawsuits and they arent as heavily checked by the state as government run healthcare, the costs are roughly the same for the treatments (when you cut out the profit margin from the private hospitals, that profit margin is however what enables large "overflow agreements" in an emergency)

in my mind a hybrid system will always be needed


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Aug 2011, 7:37 pm

Oodain wrote:
i enjoy a couple of hours of state paid medical services a week and while supply and demand does have an effect on waiting time that also hits the private halth sector in denmark,
in reality private clinics here are mostly plastic surgery, laser eye correction and similar, the real hospital work done by private clinics are either people with an "extended" health insurance or overflow from the public system.

private hospitals in denmark have a higher percentage of malpractice lawsuits and they arent as heavily checked by the state as government run healthcare, the costs are roughly the same for the treatments (when you cut out the profit margin from the private hospitals, that profit margin is however what enables large "overflow agreements" in an emergency)

in my mind a hybrid system will always be needed


A hybrid system would be a fair compromise, but some people already argue that is what we have because they think things like medicaid are actually adequete programs.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Aug 2011, 7:38 pm

Oodain wrote:

in my mind a hybrid system will always be needed


Correct. A purely government run system will ration health care sooner or later. Why? Governments cannot control their costs. They either have to cut back on services or raise taxes. If the political climate is such that raising taxes won't fly, then service will be cut back. It is simple arithmetic.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

10 Aug 2011, 7:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:

in my mind a hybrid system will always be needed


Correct. A purely government run system will ration health care sooner or later. Why? Governments cannot control their costs. They either have to cut back on services or raise taxes. If the political climate is such that raising taxes won't fly, then service will be cut back. It is simple arithmetic.

ruveyn

As do private insurance companies. The difference is insurance companies don't want you to know they are rationing until you get sick and they deny you coverage because of some clause buried ten pages deep in the fine print. Or they snoop into your medical history looking for some lame excuse to claim you had a pre-existing condition, in which case you might have to hire a lawyer to get them to pay up.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

10 Aug 2011, 7:56 pm

no costs in denmark have stayed consistent between private and public healthcare.

the driving factor in public healtcare cost is quality control where the driving force in private healthcare is profit.

there has been a rise in price per capita(something all countries see if measured over a longer time period) but we also have a very large aging population compared to the younger generations and it is starting to show economically.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Aug 2011, 7:59 pm

marshall wrote:
As do private insurance companies. The difference is insurance companies don't want you to know they are rationing until you get sick and they deny you coverage because of some clause buried ten pages deep in the fine print. Or they snoop into your medical history looking for some lame excuse to claim you had a pre-existing condition, in which case you might have to hire a lawyer to get them to pay up.


In that case, don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, watch your weight and exercise regularly. Each of us is responsible for his own good health.

ruveyn



Fatal-Noogie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,069
Location: California coast, United States of America, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Cosmos

10 Aug 2011, 8:16 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
As do private insurance companies. The difference is insurance companies don't want you to know they are rationing until you get sick and they deny you coverage because of some clause buried ten pages deep in the fine print. Or they snoop into your medical history looking for some lame excuse to claim you had a pre-existing condition, in which case you might have to hire a lawyer to get them to pay up.


In that case, don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, watch your weight and exercise regularly. Each of us is responsible for his own good health.

ruveyn
Is a coal miner who gets black lung responsible for that after the company failed to meet ventilation standards?
Is a person responsible for getting arthritis, or Alzheimer's, or any number of genetically predisposed conditions thru no fault of heir own?
Is a pedestrian who's internal organs get crushed by a drunk driver at fault for that?

It's easy to say, "Each of us is responsible for his own good health." until bad s**t happens to you.


_________________
Curiosity is the greatest virtue.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

10 Aug 2011, 8:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
As do private insurance companies. The difference is insurance companies don't want you to know they are rationing until you get sick and they deny you coverage because of some clause buried ten pages deep in the fine print. Or they snoop into your medical history looking for some lame excuse to claim you had a pre-existing condition, in which case you might have to hire a lawyer to get them to pay up.


In that case, don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, watch your weight and exercise regularly. Each of us is responsible for his own good health.

ruveyn


Yes excercise eat healthy and otherwise stay at home and do not do anything at all that might possibly have health consequences......it is ok for wealthy people to indulge in various pleasures, but if your not wealthy you just cannot afford to enjoy anything at all that might have a negative health consequence.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

10 Aug 2011, 8:28 pm

Fatal-Noogie wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
As do private insurance companies. The difference is insurance companies don't want you to know they are rationing until you get sick and they deny you coverage because of some clause buried ten pages deep in the fine print. Or they snoop into your medical history looking for some lame excuse to claim you had a pre-existing condition, in which case you might have to hire a lawyer to get them to pay up.


In that case, don't smoke, don't drink alcohol, watch your weight and exercise regularly. Each of us is responsible for his own good health.

ruveyn
Is a coal miner who gets black lung responsible for that after the company failed to meet ventilation standards?
Is a person responsible for getting arthritis, or Alzheimer's, or any number of genetically predisposed conditions thru no fault of heir own?
Is a pedestrian who's internal organs get crushed by a drunk driver at fault for that?

It's easy to say, "Each of us is responsible for his own good health." until bad sh** happens to you.


Really Ruveyn, you should know better. Don't you volunteer for the blind? Were they at fault for for their blindness?