Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
You CAN NOT control hospital costs.
|
Yes, you can control hospital costs. The first thing you need to do stand on the head of every legislator and regulatory body in existence until the apply anti-Trust Laws against the robber baron hospital Cartels that fix the price of health care services far and above and beyond the actual cost (with profit).
Because the mouthpiece for the Cartel, the AHA (American Hospital Association) is a major campaign contributor and writes most of the State and federal legislation, I don't think you have a snow-ball's chance in Hell with that, until you first enact a Constitutional Amendment that bars any entity that is not eligible to vote from contributing to any election campaign or ballot issue.
If by some miracle you manage to do that, then you need to force the closure of hospitals, because hospitals are the least efficient means of health care delivery.
That's why in Europe they don't have very many hospitals. They rely on highly efficient extremely cost effective high quality specialty clinics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
And no, controlling litigation will not solve it. Many states already (rightfully) have. It only made a small dent and costs kept increasing from there.
|
But you aren't controlling it. You only have the illusion that you are controlling it because of the existence of meaningless legislation that is ineffectual and ineffective and the reason is that the legislation is written by lawyers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
I love how all the conservatives say "just go bankrupt".
|
I'm an ultra-conservative and have never said that and never will. You're stuck on this Planet just like everyone else. You get a chance for life, and nothing more. I'm under no legal, moral or ethical obligation to prolong or extend your life or to ensure that your life is "beautiful."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
Besides the obvious affects it will pretty much guarantee you will never get a good job. Many employers do credit checks for any non garbage job. I GOT MY JOB in 2005 because of my credit score. My future employer told me "your credit score told me all I need to know about you"
|
Kudoos to your employer. Perhaps your employer was a client of mine, since I used to consult in security and investigations.
There is a very simple solution to this, but know that you caused this to happen through your own blind stupidity, so it is your fault, but you can fix it.
You, through your own stupidity and short-sightedness insisted that insurance companies that originally and initially offered catastrophic "health insurance" threw a tempter tantrum like a 2-year old and forced those insurance to constantly expand their coverage.
By the 1950s, you had forced insurers to expand coverage to include all hospital emergency room visits.
In the early 1960s, you forced them to expand coverage to expand coverage to include pregnancy and child-birth.
During the 1970s, you forced expansion to include all diagnostic services.
And by the mid-1980s, you forced health insurance companies to expand services to include all doctor's office visits, because you were so lame you didn't want to pay the $15 office visit fee.
In 1978 there were 16 "health insurance" companies, 11 national companies and 5 regional companies. Only 3 of those 16 "health insurance" companies were for-profit. The remainder were not-for-profit.
By 1986, there were more than 800 "health insurance" companies and more than 750 of them were for-profit.
So your doctor, who previously only had to deal with maybe 6 health insurance companies and their bizarre and unique forms that have to be filled out completely and correctly in order for your doctor to get reimbursed now has to deal with more than 800 bizarre and incredibly unique forms that must be filled out completely and correctly with every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed in order to get reimbursed.
How do you think doctors responded to that?
I can tell you how Dr. Joseph E Russel who had an office on Neeb Road in Cincinnati responded. He previously had a receptionist and a part-time office worker who filled out the insurance forms for patients to get reimbursed.
After the Great Expansion, he had no choice but to hire an office manager, 6 full-time office workers, and 6-part time office workers in order to fill out the 100s of uniquely bizarre insurance forms to get reimbursed.
Where do you think Dr Russel got the money to pay those new employees he was forced to hire because you threw a temper tantrum like a 2-year old and insisted on having greatly expanded "health insurance" coverage?
Do you think he just squatted and money came out? Do you think he prayed and money fell out of the sky?
No, he raised his office visit rate from $15 to $35.
And then you whined and cried like a 2-year old about that.
By 1988 after the smoke clear and all the Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 Reorganization bankruptcies, and the mergers and acquisitions and leveraged buyouts, there were just over 650 "health insurance" companies remaining (and the vast majority were for-profit).
And then something wonderful happened: the personal computer got cheap and more powerful.
And so some very clever people, some very courageous people, more so than 90% of the wimps on this forum, got a brilliant idea. They would teach themselves at their own expense how to process the 650 uniquely different medical insurance forms and they would use their personal computer to process them and they sold this idea to the many doctors who were forced to raise their office visit rates because they were forced to hire new staff because you all threw a temper tantrum like a 2-year old.
Welcome to the world of the 3rd Party Medical Billing industry.
Now your doctor fired his staff because he didn't need them, but he could only lower his office visit fee just a little, because the 3rd Party Medical Billing industry generally charged 12% to 20% of the amount of the insurance reimbursement as a fee for the service of medical billing.
As you might expect, some people refused or couldn't pay what they owed to the doctor, so the doctor was forced to turn over the accounts that went unpaid to Collection Agencies.
So the Collection Agencies are collecting on these accounts, and they start thinking, "Hey, wait a minute. Since we're already collecting on these accounts, why don't we offer medical billing services and tie them together?"
And that's why so many 3rd Party Medical Billing services are also Debt Collectors, like, um, you know, NCO Medical.
And because Collection Agencies already have contracts with Credit Reporting Agencies and can report debts, they started reporting medical debts on people's credit reports.
Congratulations.
See how your stupidity and short-sightedness brought this grief upon yourself? Yes, you are the cause of your own grief.
But you can fix this. All you have to do is contact your State legislators (I sure hope everyone knows what that is) and have them enact a law that bars the reporting of medical debt on credit reports.
It's so simple.
As an ultra-conservative, I don't believe medical debt should be reported and as an expert in security and investigations, medical debt is not of the same nature of other bad debts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
Let me put this back for the righties.
How would you solve the health care problem.
A) **** Joe the working class guy.
B) Your solution.
Of course if the answer were easy....
|
It is easy. I've repeatedly in numerous posts explained why you have problems in the health care industry.
The first thing you need to do, before you do anything else, is break up the robber baron hospital Cartels. I've mentioned this on more posts until I want to vomit on people's shows, and even shown evidence to support it. For example, in the Cincinnati MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area), the actual real true cost (with sufficient profit) of open-heart surgery is $13,000 but the robber baron hospital Cartels (illegal), namely Tri-Health and the other competing Cartel have colluded (illegal) to fix the cost (illegal) of open-heart surgery at $26,000 to $41,000.
The actual real true cost (with just and fair profit) for child-birth is $2,300 not $9,200.
What are you doing about that?
Nothing, so throw away your money like it's worthless and love it.
After you break up the illegal colluding price fixing robber baron hospital Cartels, you need to enact, I don't know, for lack of a better term, the "sports rule" or the old "radio rule" that says someone can only own one hospital in a given market (an MSA).
Okay, so the Sisters of Mercy (who operate the Mercy/Bethesda hospitals and others in your area) and the Sisters of Charity (the Franciscan health care system like Good Samaritan and other hospitals so-named) and the others will have to sell off two of three hospitals they operate in a market. Sucks for them, fantastic for you. That will acutally force the closure of many hospitals and result in LOWER health care costs for you.
As I have dared so many in the past, the Cincinnati MSA with a population of 3 Million has 19 full-service hospitals. I dare anyone to find a city in Europe with a population of 3 Million and 19 full-service hospitals.
You can't.
As I have pointed out until I want to vomit on people's shoes, Bucharesti (population 3 Million) has 3 full-service hospitals, Paris (France not Kentucky) with a population of 3 Million has 6 full-service hospitals and Berlin (the city not the music group) with a population of 3 Million has only 3 full-service hospitals.
Why is that?
Very simple: Hospitals are the LEAST efficient means of health care delivery.
The Europeans know that, and that is why they rely on specialty clinics to offer cost-effective, economically efficient, high quality health care and that is why they don't have 12 or 15 or 19 full-service hospitals for similarly situated cities.
Why do you think kidney dialysis is offered at specialty clinics, like, um, you know, kidney dialysis clinics?
Because it is a helluva lot freaking cheaper than getting kidney dialysis in a hospital.
Why do you think the AHA (American Hospital Association) has spent $Millions over the last 20 years trying to run kidney dialysis clinics out of business through legislative activity?
Because the hospitals WANT that freaking money.
That's why.
When you all grow a brain and figure that out, your lives will be so much better and so much improved.
When you all do those things, and you must do those things first or your efforts will be totally in vain and your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell, then you can move on and address the "health insurance" industry.
What is "health insurance?"
The cost of open-heart surgery (here in my neck of the woods is $26,000 to $41,000 because the illegal colluding price fixing robber baron hospital Cartels have decreed that is the price.
Do you have $26,000 to $41,000 in cash laying around for open-heart surgery? Do you want to save up and hold $26,000 to $41,000 for a rainy day when you might need or want open-heart surgery?
If the answer to those questions is "No or Hell, no" then you're going to need "health insurance."
An "health insurance" company collects and pools money for that rainy day when you might need open-heart surgery, but there is a cost for that service. That cost comes in many ways. For you, the consumer, it is a matter of Opportunity Cost. You could save up your own money for medical expenses, but in doing so, it would limit your ability to spend money on other things, so instead it is cheaper and more efficient for you to pay a flat fee every month to have that money available to you than it would be to try and save the money yourself. That flat fee you pay is the Opportunity Cost.
Where do they get the money to pool together?
A for-profit "health insurance" company gets the money from investors. Investors risk their money by purchasing stock in the "health insurance" company. The investor relies on the company management to make sound financial decisions, meaning that money is not wasted or spent on useless or frivolous things. If management is effective, then the "health insurance" company will have more money at the end of the year than it spend during the year, and part of that money might be distributed as a dividend to investors, who then make a profit, because they got a return on their investment.
If the "health insurance" company does not pay a dividend, then the investors rely heavily on stupid foolish idiots like Joe McTrader in his McMansion with his McComputer to purchase stock and artificially drive up the value of the stock so that the investors can sell it for profit and stick Joe McTrader with the losses if the stock drops.
A non-profit "health insurance" company gets its money from donations and grants initially. It uses that money as a seed fund and invests it to grow the money. It also collects premiums from consumers and uses that money to pay costs and the excess is also invest. Then it makes sound financial management decisions regarding payments, meaning that money is not wasted or spent on useless or frivolous things. Non-profit "health insurance" companies tend to be more HMO-style oriented than for-profit.
If you're wondering why "health insurance" is in quotes, it is because it is not insurance. Insurance is based on actuarial science, that is, statistics. It is a proven fact that people who drive a red colored car are more likely to be injured or killed in a traffic accident, to have a traffic accident, or to be cited for a moving violation than in a white colored car or a light blue colored car. The same can be said about 2-door versus 3-door (hatchback), a 3-door versus a 4-door, a 4-door versus a 5-door (hatchback/wagon) and so on.
Certain dwelling types in certain zip codes are more likely to burn than other dwelling types, or dwelling types in other zip codes. Professional fire department versus volunteer fire department and so on for home insurance.
Life insurance is based on race, ethnicity, ancestry, family history, personal habits, marital status, occupation and so on.
What you have now is not insurance, because it is not based on actuarial science. A single person subsidizes the "health insurance" of those single people who have children, those who are married, and those who are married and have children, by paying more, which is fundamentally unfair.
I mention that only because people, the very same people who wanted to expand "health insurance" to include office visits, want the government to provide "health insurance."
How would that work?
The government would collect and pool money together, not from investors like a for-profit "health insurance" company and not from philanthropists like a non-profit "health insurance" company, but rather from tax revenues.
Here's where I see a major problem. Non-profit and for-profit "health insurance" companies
must manage their money by not paying for services that are frivolous, useless, wasteful or unnecessary.
What is government to do? I think people are under the false impression that government doesn't have to take any action to manage the system, it just has to pay out whenever its asked to pay out regardless of the reason.
That in part has to do with the mentality. The rest of the World goes to the doctor to get well, but Americans go to the doctor to feel good.
"Getting Well" and "Feeling Good" are not the same thing.
"Getting Well" is objective and quantifiable, but "Feeling Good" is totally subjective and cannot possibly be quantified.
Couple that bizarre mentality with the equally bizarre notion that a government "health insurance" system doesn't have to manage itself and you have a huge disaster that will economically destroy the US, and if not, then it will result in the loss of other programs or services.
And that disaster will be upon you even faster if you refuse to break up and destroy the illegal colluding price fixing robber baron hospital Cartels and/or refuse to force hospitals to reorganize into highly effective, efficient quality specialty clinics.
Note that in Obamacare the AHA (American Hospital Association and major contributor to Obama) put in a section that stopped doctor-owned hospitals butt-cold.
How do you stop the AHA? I have a few ideas, none of which are legal, but one legal thing you could do is enact a constitutional amendment that bars any entity that is not eligible to vote from contributing or financing election campaigns or ballot issues.
You wanted a solution, there it is.
Fix the underlying problems that drive up the costs of health care first, and see if you can't live with that.
If you still can't live with that, and I'm viewing this from the most rational person, not the most irrational or the least rational or the most selfish person who thinks the function of everyone on Earth is to subsidize their life-style 24/7, then place limits on the profits that for-profit "health insurance" companies can make.
You are ultimately responsible for your own health and health care. If you want it, you need to pay for it just like anything else. If you're over-burdened with medical problems, that sucks for you, but that's life. It serves no purpose to pay for you to have five liver transplants and still die (and yes, that really did happen -- a person had five liver transplants, his body rejected them all and he died).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Can Medicare today survive without younger folks like me paying into it?
|
No, Medicare is broke and will collapse in a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftyred
Why is it that people add up the costs of single payer tax programs, but forget that this would replace the amount you are currently paying out of your paycheck for private insurance (minus the profits the middlemen and stockholders need to extract to make it worth their while)?
|
As I explained, the primary reason that people want a single payer system is because they are under the grotesquely mistaken impression that the system will have no limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
There's administrative costs regardless of whether the government does them or a private company (an insurance company).
|
The government's administrative costs will be higher, because government employees receive wages and salaries above premium, and because of their outrageously lucrative pie-in-the-sky benefit and pension plans, which the government can barely afford to pay now, without taxing the snot out of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
Next is the issue of not paying when people get sick. Obamacare does not allow insurers to drop people (except in the case of fraud). That's EXACTLY how they get dropped now when they become ill. Their policy gets rescinded because it was fraudulent not because they got sick.
|
I wanna have your baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
If the TRUTH be told. When it comes to chronic and degenerative diseases and conditions, insurance doesn't make anyone any healthier. Conventional Medicine doesn't even make anyone healthier. All your regular medical doctor knows how to do is put you on prescription drugs for the rest of your lives to cover up your symptoms which costs a fortune and creates undesirable side effects.
|
That's a valid point, but not the primary issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
it would cost anywhere from $2.5-4.5 trillion A YEAR
|
Slightly over $4 TRILLION.
At first glance, it might seem that the only thing happening is shifting money from the private sector to the public (government) sector as ottomobeale rather ridiculously insinuates.
That is not the case.
ottomobeale and a few others erroneously believe that all that is necessary is to take the money already paid by employers, and the money already paid in premiums by employees and give it to the government to manage and everything will be just peachy.
That is not only wrong, it is a huge mistake.
You have already given your money to the government to manage under the guise of a retirement income supplement aka Social Security.
Your government collected more Social Security taxes than was necessary to administer the program on a monthly basis. The result was that each year the SSA had a surplus of tax money it had collected.
What did your government do with that money? Did the Wizened Ones in your government wisely and judiciously place that money in an interest bearing account or invest it to increase the amount of money?
No.
Your government promptly spent every single penny of the surplus tax money collected.
And even that wouldn't have been so bad, except that your government then issued bonds which accrue interest, so not only do you not have the money, you have less than you actually had because you have to pay the interest that accrues on the bonds and treasury notes.
And you people are going to trust your government to manage taxes collected for an "health insurance" plan?
Really?
How stupid are you people?
You people are dumber than dog dirt.
The only reason your Congress isn't spending every single penny of surplus tax money collected for Social Security now, is because your Congress can't spend the money because Social Security is barely able to collect enough in tax revenues to pay the current benefits owed and there is no surplus and there hasn't been for quite some time. In fact, Social Security couldn't even collect enough taxes to pay out benefits and had to borrow money because your idiot Congress spent the previous surpluses.
And that is the
only reason.
Getting back to the issue, what all of you are forgetting, or perhaps don't understand, is that the money for your "health insurance" does not come entirely from your premiums that you pay or the amount paid by your employer.
Where does the other money come from? As I explained earlier, it comes from private investors who purchase stocks in the "health insurance" company.
Now, all of you Big Brains, please enlighten us and explain where the government is going get
that part of the money that is courtesy of private investors who purchase stocks in "health insurance" companies?
Well, we're waiting....
.....still waiting with great anticip-p-p-p-ation....
....I'm laughing at the superior intellect.
There's only two sources for that money. You can force employers to pay even more or you can force you the tax-payer to pay even more, or you can split it up and have both you and your employer pay more.
Hahahahahaha.......suckers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
and why does that PROCEEDURE of getting an MRI cost 4k???
because the MACHINE itself cost 1.4 million dollars
and the tech that runs it has to make ATLEAST minimum wage
and then the DOCTOR/SPECIALIST has to READ(analyze) the MRI
it can take YEARS before that machine has even paid for itself..and you have the cost of the personnel and the electric to run it, on top of that
|
And that is exactly why a European city of 3 Million does not have 19 full-service hospitals, and it is exactly why Europeans rely heavily on specialty clinics.
It's all about efficiency and cost effectiveness and the current system in the US is anything but efficient and cost-effective.
That is one reason Americans pay more. With respect to health care, less is more, and less is cheaper and less is more cost effective and efficient.
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.
