U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-30-2010, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 76,871,028 times
Reputation: 27652

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
I was thinking today how much has changed in one generation.

My dad was the only working member of our household when I was growing up in the 50s-60s. He probably never earned more than$100–$200 at most a week, and he had a decent job. My mom never worked during those years. There were six of us.

We went to doctors (not a lot like kids today, but we went) and to dentists. My parents had their babies on very little income before that, and had good old Blue Cross Blue Shield. They were not plunged into hopeless debt over medical bills! AND my mother stayed the requisite 2 weeks in the hospital following each birth! They were a young couple with modest income and somehow could afford the medical costs.

In subsequent years, we stayed with BCBS. As I said, we went to doctors as necessary and to dentists, all six of us. My parents paid their bills each month and we always had money left over for savings and a summer vacation. Somewhere in there I broke my arm and went to the ER. My older sister had braces on her teeth. My parents, still earning modestly, paid for it all.

We had a couple of families in the neighborhood with children that had serious illnesses (one had MS, another had something else) and it was not apparent that these families were going under due to medical bills.

Now what exactly has happened in one generation?? I'd like to see someone trace the logical development to where we are today, with 53 million uninsured, millions others underinsured and how many more going bankrupt from medical bills?

Where would you put the blame?
Similar childhood here..60's through 70's.
Family of 6, my father worked and my mother stayed home.

I recall my first job..you had major medical for any hospital and then it was the typical 80/20 deal. Doctor was just pay as you go and there was no such thing as Dental insurance. I recall I had to have my wisdom teeth removed and I paid the Dentist weekly until the bill was paid off.

I think what started the change was the HMO.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2010, 04:32 PM
 
2,592 posts, read 4,872,919 times
Reputation: 1943
I saw an interview with a doctor today and he said things are already at least 10 times worse now then they were before the new health care bill. And this is only the beginning.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2010, 11:01 PM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
20,288 posts, read 23,853,307 times
Reputation: 28068
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
Correction: It costs more to give health care to those who cannot pay for it.
Just walk through some of the halls of some of these long-term care facilities today, peek here, peek there, you'll be shocked at what you're paying
for!

The elderly? No, I'm not even talking about them!

Last edited by tijlover; 10-05-2010 at 11:02 PM.. Reason: spelling
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2010, 11:21 PM
 
311 posts, read 652,033 times
Reputation: 225
Ok I will bite, why did we go from 16 insurence com to over 800 in six years? I really would like to know.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2010, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,661 posts, read 78,613,464 times
Reputation: 36332
The real problem in health care is the "Immortality Expectation". People believe that they will live to 100 without an ache or a discomfort, and if anything threatens that expectation, they indignantly rush off to a health-care provider and hammer their fist on the desk until their immortality expectation is restored, whatever the cost.

You are going to die, and suffer along the way. Throwing 1.2-trillion at that unhappy prospect has not changed it, and will not change it. No matter how high you raise the ante, you'll still be playing the same cards.

Health-care costs are unmanageable, and collectively, our national wealth will pay the bill (with borrowed money), no matter who signs the check. That can only be remedied by lowering our expectations to a level that we can afford.

I suffer from maybe a half-dozen medical conditions that medical science can't do anything about. They can't prevent them, they can't cure them, they can't treat them. Some, they can throw palliative drugs at, but not all. I live with them and I will die with them. How much would it cost if I, and everyone like me, demanded to be treated, to be cured.

How much would it cost to make sure that every American will become a quick-witted centenarian who can touch their toes? If we demand it, we will have to pay for it. And it won't matter if the check is mailed by the government, the private insurers, or the patients themselves. It will still have to be paid.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2010, 11:13 AM
 
59,334 posts, read 46,394,850 times
Reputation: 36799
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The real problem in health care is the "Immortality Expectation". People believe that they will live to 100 without an ache or a discomfort, and if anything threatens that expectation, they indignantly rush off to a health-care provider and hammer their fist on the desk until their immortality expectation is restored, whatever the cost.

You are going to die, and suffer along the way. Throwing 1.2-trillion at that unhappy prospect has not changed it, and will not change it. No matter how high you raise the ante, you'll still be playing the same cards.

Health-care costs are unmanageable, and collectively, our national wealth will pay the bill (with borrowed money), no matter who signs the check. That can only be remedied by lowering our expectations to a level that we can afford.

I suffer from maybe a half-dozen medical conditions that medical science can't do anything about. They can't prevent them, they can't cure them, they can't treat them. Some, they can throw palliative drugs at, but not all. I live with them and I will die with them. How much would it cost if I, and everyone like me, demanded to be treated, to be cured.

How much would it cost to make sure that every American will become a quick-witted centenarian who can touch their toes? If we demand it, we will have to pay for it. And it won't matter if the check is mailed by the government, the private insurers, or the patients themselves. It will still have to be paid.
Excellent post.

My sister works in healthcare and has patients that could fix thier problems through simple things like diet and exercise.....nope....they want a pill or a surgery etc. that will fix everything while they continue to lie on the couch and stuff cheetos in their mouth.

Diabetes, worn out knees, back problems and all in relatively young people. Oh, and don't worry they are actively trying to get disability too so you get to pay for their room and board along with medical care.

When the hell did we become a nation of deadbeats?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2010, 11:14 AM
 
59,334 posts, read 46,394,850 times
Reputation: 36799
Quote:
Originally Posted by tired-of-mn View Post
Ok I will bite, why did we go from 16 insurence com to over 800 in six years? I really would like to know.
Source? Way to vague of a question....what type...a specific state....what exactly are you saying?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2010, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Ohio
22,798 posts, read 16,003,876 times
Reputation: 19288
Quote:
Originally Posted by tired-of-mn View Post
Ok I will bite, why did we go from 16 insurence com to over 800 in six years? I really would like to know.
Because of legislation enacted during the Carter Administration that created the FIRE economy and then changes during the Reagan Administration that advanced it.

FIRE is an acronym for Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. It was proposed as a solution to problems back in 1973 when Nixon took the US off of the gold standard (FDR took Americans and businesses off of the gold standard, but the US government stayed on the gold standard until the end of 1973).

Most people are unaware that the original "health insurance" companies were created by the hospitals.

Employers didn't pay for "health insurance" and didn't offer it. If you wanted "health insurance" you paid for it yourself. If you owned a car, you'd probably have "health insurance" especially since the only thing "health insurance" covered was catastrophic injury/illness, like "the cancer" (that's what it was called -- there was lung cancer and "women's cancer" and breast cancer and bone cancer and then "the cancer" because oncologists and oncology didn't exist and they hadn't yet discovered all the other forms of cancer and given them name) and injuries at work or from automobile accidents.

When FDR enacts his Wage & Price Freeze, employers respond by offering benefits to employees and that included "health insurance."

Linking employers to health care was a huge mistake and fortunately Obamacare will correct that mistake as employers start dumping "health insurance" and the responsibility of health care back onto the people where it belongs.

The "health insurance" companies at that time, which were founded by hospitals were mainly HMOs not true "insurance" companies and all but one were non-profit (that is a key thing right there).

In 1960 or 1961, they start covering child-birth. Before that people paid for their own child-birth.

Then in the 1970s you have the "Perfect Storm" with healthy Americans who are going to the hospital, and those bastards are causing hospitals to loose money, plus the doctors (not MBAs) who were running the hospitals were going into debt trying to "keep up with the Jones'" by buying all of the highly expensive new technology coming onto the market, and then of course the entire time hospitals had rejected the Capitalist model and refused to diversify and specialize, which caused them to become grossly inefficient at delivering health care services, and then they owned/controlled all of the HMOs.

So the solution to their problem is seen as expanding coverage to include everything, like even doctor's office visits, and prescriptions and tests and so on.

They also join with other bona fide insurance companies (I'm talking casualty, property and life insurance companies) to expand their network.

That was a disaster that led to 175 insurance companies failing within 1-2 years of merging with the HMOs, and of course the tax-payers paid for that.

Then you have changes in 1982 in insurance and banking regulations that allow banks to start getting their fingers into the pie, and within 15 years, the majority of "health insurance" companies are now for-profit (about 65% or so), instead of not-for-profit, and worse than that, they start aggressively managing costs by denying treatment they believe is frivolous and we all know how that worked out (those were big issues during the Clinton Administration).

The situation that exists now is akin to house with a hole in the roof. Every time it rains water leaks in and ruins the carpet.

People are tired of paying to replace the carpet. I get that, I ain't stupid.

What should the solution be? Should we have tax-payer funded national carpet insurance?

Or should we fix the hole in the roof?

Obviously you fix the whole in the roof first to see if the problem goes away. If you want to do that, then first you have break up the hospital cartels. You have to get the hospitals out of the HMO business, you need pass legislation like the "sports-rule" where nobody can own more than one hospital in the same MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area).

You need to force hospitals to operate more efficiently, and that means forcing hospitals to adopt the Capitalist Model and diversify and specialize. If the geriatric or psychiatric or pediatric or orthopedic department in a hospital is losing money, then shut it down, spin it off or combine with the departments in another hospital. So a hospital loses "prestige" because it no longer has an orthopedic ward. Big deal. That ain't my problem and it is not my function to fund a hospital's prestige.

One thing you can do for that is penalize hospitals that over charge for services. $16 for two Tylenol Tablets? Are you for real? Here in Cincinnati a family pays $9,000+ for child-birth that actually only costs $2,300. Why do they over-charge? Aside from the fact that the Cartels set the price, they do it to subsidize the losses in their other departments. Again, if a department is losing money, shut it down, spin it off or combine it with another hospital.

After you do that, you can go after the for-profit insurance companies.

And after that, if health care is still unaffordable, then maybe you can consider some kind of national system.

But you better think it through and obviously none of you have.

You have a congenital heart defect and need a heart transplant. Because you smoke, you go to the bottom of the list for transplant recipients, even though smoking has nothing to do with your heart problem. And you stay at the bottom until a heart becomes available and there is no one else who needs one (people will be jumping over you).

You need a kidney transplant, but you were/are an alcoholic (or drug user) so you don't even go on the list for a kidney transplant, and if you do, you go to the bottom of the list and stay there.

With a national health system, you can't do that. It violates constitutional rights to equal treatment under the law.

That will be quite a shock to transplant recipients who finally reach the top of the list, only to get "bumped" by 500 people who have been on the list for 10 years but couldn't get transplant because they smoke or did smoke or drink or did drink or whatever.

And what's the cut-off? How much money should be spent on one person for health care? If you spend $1 Million on one person, then you'll have to spend $1 Million on everyone who believes they need that much in treatment, and if you don't you'll have lawyers running to court filing law suits every other day because someone got to use the machine that goes "ping" and someone else didn't.

That's right, all those other countries that have national health care, don't have a constitution worded quite like the US Constitution, and also they engage in "managed" care meaning if you're too old, too bad.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 01:13 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,643,799 times
Reputation: 5180
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The real problem in health care is the "Immortality Expectation". People believe that they will live to 100 without an ache or a discomfort, and if anything threatens that expectation, they indignantly rush off to a health-care provider and hammer their fist on the desk until their immortality expectation is restored, whatever the cost.

You are going to die, and suffer along the way. Throwing 1.2-trillion at that unhappy prospect has not changed it, and will not change it. No matter how high you raise the ante, you'll still be playing the same cards.

Health-care costs are unmanageable, and collectively, our national wealth will pay the bill (with borrowed money), no matter who signs the check. That can only be remedied by lowering our expectations to a level that we can afford.

I suffer from maybe a half-dozen medical conditions that medical science can't do anything about. They can't prevent them, they can't cure them, they can't treat them. Some, they can throw palliative drugs at, but not all. I live with them and I will die with them. How much would it cost if I, and everyone like me, demanded to be treated, to be cured.

How much would it cost to make sure that every American will become a quick-witted centenarian who can touch their toes? If we demand it, we will have to pay for it. And it won't matter if the check is mailed by the government, the private insurers, or the patients themselves. It will still have to be paid.
There it is!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2010, 01:15 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,643,799 times
Reputation: 5180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Excellent post.


When the hell did we become a nation of deadbeats?
When healthcare became too cheap, or free.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top