Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
It's a chicken or egg argument.
|
No, it's the Laws of Economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Costs also went up when insurance became more common place.
|
No, your costs more than doubled between 1940 and 1950, even though only two "health insurance" companies existed at the time: the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross, and the AMA's Blue Shield.
In 1940, it was only 0.40% of disposable income, but more than doubled to 0.92% by 1950....due to technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
So while allowing those without coverage to die would bring costs down, so would doing away with your coverage.
|
That isn't true at all, and you cannot cite anything to support your claim. I won't even get into the fact that your claim is contradictory to the Laws of Economics.
Here, I think it is best that your
own government explain to you what drives up the cost of healthcare....
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
True, real, genuine,
bona fide, actuarial-based health insurance has no bearing on the cost of healthcare, and in fact, may actually reduce the cost of healthcare.
Unfortunately, health insurance was outlawed by Congress and the IRS in 1954 and replaced with a fee-for-service plan.
Fee-for-service plans inherently have a tendency to drive up costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
It's not a coincidence that hospital costs skyrocketed at the same time a law was passed forcing them to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay.
|
No such law exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
It is one thing to have a supply and demand issue where 5 livers are needed but only 4 available and another to not treat someone even when treatment is common and available just because they would cost too much.
|
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Laws of Economics are always in play, and they most certainly do apply to healthcare.
Healthcare Capital consists of cash, credit, facilities, space, equipment, technology, maintenance, staff and personnel and much more, not to belabor the point.
Each facet of Capital in Healthcare
is limited. Even if that were not true, Opportunity Costs still are present.
If I spend $300,000 to treat you, then that means another person who needs $300,000 in treatment will be denied treatment, or that 10 people who require $30,000 of treatment are denied or that 100 people who require $3,000 in treatment are denied treatment.
And, yes, that happens in Canada, Britain, Sweden, Germany, France, etc etc etc and people die as a result.
The amount of money you have to spend on healthcare is finite, not
infinite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
If hospitals were faced with every patient having to pay cash they would lower their costs because otherwise only a very select few could pay $6000 for a C scan and their hospitals would be empty.
|
The flaw in your argument is that healthcare costs whatever it costs.
And what does healthcare cost?
We do not truly know,
because you do not have Free Market healthcare.
A CAT Scan costs whatever it costs, and if it truly does cost $6,000 then that's just the way it is.
Hospitals rent CAT Scanners. That costs. The maintenance contract on the CAT Scanner? That's not free; it costs. The floor space that the CAT Scanner takes up? That's not free either...it costs. The technicians who operate it are not free. The janitors and cleaning crew who clean the room in which the CAT Scan sits are not free. The security guard who roams the hospital is not free. The payroll clerk, the HR person,
et al are not free.
Shall I continue?
You people just don't think.
You have 1,539 separate economies in the united States. The Cost-of-Living varies dramatically. How dramatically?
Your government says a single person with an annual income of $53,490 qualifies for tax-payer subsidized HUD Section 8 Housing in some of those 1,539 separate economies.
But, then, your government also says that a single person with an annual income of $9,101
earns too much money to qualify for tax-payer subsidized housing.
Who among you is even remotely intelligent?
I ask, because a person with a modicum of intelligence would understand that in some of the 1,539 separate economies in the united States, a CAT Scan might actually truly really cost $590, while in other parts of the united States, a CAT Scan might truly really actually cost $17,000....
.
...and there is nothing immoral, unethical, unlawful, illegal or wrong with that.
For every single piece of medical diagnostic equipment ---MRI, CAT, PET, X-ray etc -- in each of those 1,539 separate economies in the united States, there is a billable rate per minute or per quarter hour which represents the "break-even" rate.
But, since those machines have to be replaced, a profit is necessary to ensure a replacement machine can be obtained in the future, so it would be Break-even Rate + Profit margin.
And, pray tell what might the Break-Even Rate and a fair Profit be?
Well, when you all decide that you want to have Free-Market healthcare, then you will know the answer.
Until such time....enjoy being powerless, clueless and in the dark, only able to guess at what those rates might be.
Economically...
Mircea
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.
