Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America's health care costs are so much more expensive when compared to other nations who manage to insure everyone.
In other words, America's issue is figuring out a way to control health care costs like other nation's already are managing to do.
I agree...
Here are some solutions. More access to high deductible plans, mandating providers post costs, advanceable tax credits for insurance for the poor, provider competition from nurse practioners and physician assistants, interstate boundary dismantling for out of state coverage.....for starters I believe these things would do a lot to introduce a real market into healthcare.
It's obvious because the DOW just closed at a record all time high of 15,680.
Thread fail.....
Financial markets are irrelevant.
Financial markets do not drive a State's economy. Production and Trade is what drives an economy.
Financial markets are not an indicator of past, present or future economic performance.
The Stock Market has no bearing on the economy......
#1 The stock market loses 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days. Characterize the state of the economy during that time.
Spoiler
GDP growth was averaging an astounding 12.5% per quarter = economics fail for you.
That actually happened September 1939 to April 1942
#2 The stock market sets records over a period of 651 days. Characterize the state of the economy during that time.
Spoiler
That was the recession 1957-1961. The DJIA doubled in value from 250 to 500+.
#3 The stock market loses 45.1% of its value over a period of 694 days. Characterize the economy.
Spoiler
That was January 1973 to December 1974 US GDP grew at rates of 1.03% per quarter to as much as 3.77% per quarter, averaging 2.24% per quarter over those 8 quarters.
Here are some solutions. More access to high deductible plans, mandating providers post costs, advanceable tax credits for insurance for the poor, provider competition from nurse practioners and physician assistants, interstate boundary dismantling for out of state coverage.....for starters I believe these things would do a lot to introduce a real market into healthcare.
The high deductible plans are irrelevant, and so is buying insurance across state lines.
What is an advance able tax credit? I agree with the nurses practitioners and physician assistants.
I don't know what you mean by "real market" for healthcare, but the stakes in healthcare decisions are different from the stakes of individuals decisions to buy consumer products.
As the economy improved via the New Deal, the DJIA recovered to half of its 1929 high by 1937.
and that is because the fed wasnt pumping millions at the time into the stock markets like they are today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm
The new deal itself was an utter failure. It lengthen the depression out for years, it wasn't until the start of WWII that the workforce recovered. The production of warfare machinery and men leaving for the military, provided the job necessary for the recovery.
i disagree. while it was a fiscal failure, it did create infrastructure that helped the country down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Inflation has also been low over the last six years.
and interest rates have been held artificially low for more than 20years.
The DOW isnt a reflection the economy.. During the great depression, the stock market was hitting record levels as well..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199
Competely wrong.
The Dow's pre-depression high was 381.17 on 9/3/1929. It would not reach this level again until 11/24/1954.
Uh, no sorry, pghquest is right, the DOW is not a reflection of the economy......see the previous post for what actually happened during the Great Depression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
I know what QE is. I also realize that the stock market isn't the best indicator of the economy.
You realize that? So, what, you were trolling? Great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
However, weren't we supposed to be having mass layoffs and sky rocketing unemployment by now? Weren't companies going to be closing up en masse?
I never said that, but then I actually have a BA in Economics.
What I said --- around April or May --- is that the economy was tracking for a recession 2nd Quarter 2014. Then, about 3 months later, the Obama Administration decided to delay implementation of key parts of the ACA that would negatively effect the economy, probably in an attempt to stave off the recession that any intelligent economist would have been forecasting for 2nd Quarter 2014. In reflection of that, since they --- the Administration --- actually took some steps to delay the recession, I said about a month ago it would be delayed to the 3rd or 4th Quarter.
It's Economics, not a credit card transaction.....it doesn't send a text message to your 'Droid 30 seconds after it happens.
On a brighter note....
LNU02500000
(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Full Time
117,868,000 August
117,308,000 September
------------ -560,000 full-time jobs lost during September 2013
.....you can party-hardy and celebrate the fact that more than half a million Americans lost their full-time job last month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Some people are just wired with a negative mindset.
Yes, because losing 560,000 full-time jobs is a good thing....right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
The DOW is made up of only 30 companies. You seriously want to use that as a proxy for a healthy economy?
Good god...
And that's only the half of it....you're young...you have to live with these idiots who can't even tell the difference between doo-doo and gummy bears....I imagine that's a frightening prospect.
As the economy improved via the New Deal, the DJIA recovered to half of its 1929 high by 1937.
The New Deal harmed the economy, not improved it.
Without WWII you'd be another Belarus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm
The dow before and during the great depression was a classic bubble. In the 6 years before the crash the dow rose over 300%. Then came the correction and sell off. Over 2 years the market lost 89% of it's value. Over the next 12 month it returned to it's pre-bubble level. It wasn't until 1955 that the market matched record bubble level.
Well, yeah, that's because they don't understand the negative impact of the post-WW I Era Real Inflation, and then you had the 1925 Recession and the 1928 Recession before the 1930 Recession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm
The new deal itself was an utter failure. It lengthen the depression out for years, it wasn't until the start of WWII that the workforce recovered. The production of warfare machinery and men leaving for the military, provided the job necessary for the recovery.
It was a little before that actually, about 1937.
1936 $24.2 Million
1937 $46.1 Million
1938 $86.3 Million
1939 $143.7 Million
1940 $873.1 Million
Those are the revenues collected by the government solely for fees on war materiel export. In other words, if you wanted to export anything classified by the government as "war materiel" you have to have a license which cost a nice fee. Consider that in 1940 the US government collected $6.5 Billion in revenues, so $873 Million is 13.5% of all revenues collected....just for licenses to export war materiel.
So, clearly, it was Europe and Asia arming themselves for war in the pre-WW II Period that helped the US economically, and not FDR's detrimental policies.
Some good points you made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
America's health care costs are so much more expensive when compared to other nations who manage to insure everyone.
In other words, America's issue is figuring out a way to control health care costs like other nation's already are managing to do.
Your own government has identified the cost factors that are escalating the costs of health care. Here they are ranked in order by your very own General Accounting Office....
1] Technology up to 65%
2] Consumer Demand up to 36%
3] Expanding Health Benefits or Insuring more people up to 13%
4] Healthcare Price Inflation up to 19% (caused by Consumer Demand and insuring more people)
5] Administrative Costs up to 13% (caused by Technology, Consumer Demand and Regulations)
6] Aging/Elderly up to 7%
Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, January 2013 pp 31-36
As you can see, the "uninsured" and the "health insurance" companies (which do not legally exist) are not the problem.
You can't even blame the elderly for the problem.
If health care costs increase 10% in a given year, then the elderly at most only drive 7% of that.
Look in the mirror for the #1 and #2 problems....you are a country enamored with technology and the more that is created, the more you want, and that ----technology--- is the Number #1 driver of health care costs.
And it is not limited solely to medical technology.....
The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com
* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized
Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center
1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org
* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs,On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room” with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.
And what is most rich, is that an ACA supporter actually had the gall to ask this question....
Why does one night in an American hospital room cost the same as 7.2 nights in a Finnish hospital room?
Now that you are armed with factual information, maybe you can actually do some soul-searching and give the correct answer......which is that Americans demand and expect way too much from health care.
The high deductible plans are irrelevant, and so is buying insurance across state lines.
What is an advance able tax credit? I agree with the nurses practitioners and physician assistants.
I don't know what you mean by "real market" for healthcare, but the stakes in healthcare decisions are different from the stakes of individuals decisions to buy consumer products.
But it's not. There is no incentive in the current healthcare market to reduce costs, so healthcare remains expensive. Free market principles are completely hamstrung in our system of all-you-can-eat-style insurance policies and government-subsidized programs. There is no incentive to get costs under control because it doesn't matter. The consumer shows up and someone else pays the bill.
Look at the often used example of Lasik eye surgery. An elective procedure usually not covered by insurance -- competition has brought the price down and the quality up year over year because free market principles. And we're running away from the methods that have been so successful here.
And that's one my biggest problems with Obamacare. I've never heard anyone explain how it will bring the price of health care services down; only how it will get more people insured. It seems to completely overlook the reason insurance is expensive -- because health care is expensive. Republicans proposed a tort reform and interstate insurance bill that would have been effective at reducing health care costs, and the Democrats tossed it out.
The high deductible plans are irrelevant, and so is buying insurance across state lines.
What is an advance able tax credit? I agree with the nurses practitioners and physician assistants.
I don't know what you mean by "real market" for healthcare, but the stakes in healthcare decisions are different from the stakes of individuals decisions to buy consumer products.
High deductible plans aren't irrelevant because they force people to actually see the cost of what they pay, thus introducing a market mechanism. Example: my father in law has a 5k ded. he had to have an mri recently and the hospital told him it would be around 3500. He said that he'll have to pay so he looked around for other option. He then found a diagnostic imaging company close to where we live that charged 750 for comparable service. He completed the scan there and forwarded the results to the hospital. If he had a low ded plan, he wouldn'thave cared and the provider would have just charged for the 3500 dollar mri. Being removed from payment is what removes the market mechanism in healthcare.
Buying across state lines isn't irrelevant either. Look at New York and Idaho. NY has one of the highest healthcare costs of any state because all the special interests that have their pet project included in premiums. Idaho has one of the lowest because it is basically a "true" catastrophe coverage. If I live in NY, I can't purcahse the Idaho plan. I should be able to purchase a plan from any state...that would FORCE health plans to be competitive.
We all know what tax credits are...advanceable tax credits are those that come before refund dates. For all intents and purposes, people who receive insurance from their employer are receiving tax advantages which are unfair to those who purcahse insurance on the market because they don't have access to the same benefits. A GOP solution to this is an advanceable tax credit to people to pay for healthcare costs, assuming the money is spend on insurance...usually up to a high-deducible plan. So, it is basically the tax credit that one would get from having employer provided insurance....without receiving employer provided insurance.
NP and PA's...this serves as competition in the provider market. I'm glad we agree here.
Issues like trauma surgery...being hit by a bus...heart attacks....are inelastic. You can't negotiate these things because more often than not you're incapacitated. These are the real reasons for catastrophe insurance. These are rare, but catastrophic events, therefore insurance should be used. The market mechanism wouldn't apply to these issues because they don't lend themselves to proper negotiation. However a market is very applicable for most of our medical issues. The things that we use often like check ups, routine screenings, physicals, dental work, pharmaceuticals, etc. All of these things are effecitvely services provided by a business and should be treated accordingly.
We basically use medical insurance these days as a payment manager only which serves to inflate cost. On top of that, organizations like the American Hospital Associate have effectively worked to inflate costs of medical treatment for years and years with no repurcussion.
But it's not. There is no incentive in the current healthcare market to reduce costs, so healthcare remains expensive. Free market principles are completely hamstrung in our system of all-you-can-eat-style insurance policies and government-subsidized programs. There is no incentive to get costs under control because it doesn't matter. The consumer shows up and someone else pays the bill.
Look at the often used example of Lasik eye surgery. An elective procedure usually not covered by insurance -- competition has brought the price down and the quality up year over year because free market principles. And we're running away from the methods that have been so successful here.
And that's one my biggest problems with Obamacare. I've never heard anyone explain how it will bring the price of health care services down; only how it will get more people insured. It seems to completely overlook the reason insurance is expensive -- because health care is expensive. Republicans proposed a tort reform and interstate insurance bill that would have been effective at reducing health care costs, and the Democrats tossed it out.
Again, a lot of healthcare costs are end of life, major surgery, cancer treatment, etc. It is not going to the doctor to get eye surgery. There is no way a free market is going to work, because the incentive will be to LIVE to GET WELL. These things will over ride costs every time.
The way forward for lower costs is already shown in Medicare and Medicaid and governments around the world.
Tort reform is irrelevant. Why conservatives are so interested in shielding doctors and hospitals from lawsuit makes no sense. Tort Reform has been implemented in many individual states, it has had zero impact on healthcare costs or lead to more people gaining insurance.
Four researchers—including a University of Texas law professor—concluded that there was no evidence that Texas physicians were leaving the state prior to the 2003 law, or that there was a significant increase in physicians moving to Texas because of better liability climate.
The same group of researchers also looked at the effect of tort reform on healthcare costs and found no evidence that they fell after 2003. The researchers compared healthcare costs in Texas counties where doctors faced a higher risk of lawsuits with those with a lower risk. The assumption was that physicians in high-risk counties were practicing more defensive medicine prior to 2003, and that fewer unnecessary procedures would be performed after 2003. However, they found that there were slightly more procedures performed in high-risk counties after the law was passed.
In seven categories of risk, Dallas and Tarrant were in the third-highest category while Collin and Denton were in the fourth-highest category.
A third report by non-profit advocacy group Public Citizen in October 2011 echoed the conclusions of both research studies. The report, called “A Failed Experiment,” found that Medicare spending and private insurance premiums both have risen faster than the national average since tort reform.
That group also examined the trend in direct-care physician growth between 1996 and 2010. It found that those physicians grew by more than 9 percent prior to tort reform, and about 4 percent afterward. It also said physician growth in rural Texas fell by 1 percent since reform, after having grown more than 23 percent prior to the law.
Buying insurance across state lines is another race to the bottom strategy that would have states weakening insurance regulations so people would end up with useless insurance.
The manner in which it brings down costs is fairly straight forward, in some respects, by getting more people covered, fewer people will go to the emergency room for care, people will see the doctor for routine check ups, thus catching more disease in earlier stages, also the way in which insurance works is pooling people.
In other words if an insurance company sells insurance to a single individual the risk is very high for the insurance company to lose money so they have to charge that single individual more because of that risk, but if it sells a group plan to 10,000 people there is less risk for the insurance company to lose money and so they can charge each of those 10,000 less because the costs are being spread out.
So by creating state exchanges, insurance companies have lower risk of losing money on any individual policy so they can offer those individuals in the state exchanges lower insurance costs with better coverage.
Yes, because losing 560,000 full-time jobs is a good thing....right?
No, because they think improving 401K balances is a bad thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
