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.
Healthcare costs started to go up when technology started to improve and people started to become more affluent.
No. Sorry that it doesn't fit into your ideology, but healthcare costs started going up when the government got involved.
First liberals froze wages so companies could not compete with wage increases for employees. Instead, they started adding health insurance benefits to compete. Then the liberals brought in medicaid and medicare. The combination of the two resulted in there being no direct relationship between the business (doctors) and the (customer). There was no longer any incentive for people to seek efficient healthcare because they weren't paying for it anymore. There was no longer any incentive to keep prices down for healthcare suppliers because their patients weren't seeking affordable prices.
Those are the facts. It the same as with education. Education costs ballooned when the government started guaranteeing student loans. When government gets involved it distorts the marketplace and competition disappears. Without competition, there is no reason to keep prices low. I don't know whether liberals truly do not understand basic concepts of economics or whether they remain willfully ignorant of them since it doesn't fit with liberal ideology. But the truth is the truth.
Not sure how you determined the "leftists" oppose the free market or profits, and your generalized exaggeration is simply incorrect. The problem with our health care system is that there is not a "free market" when it comes to the healthcare marketplace. It does not work like other free markets as there is no choice. You don't choose to need health care and you have no choice regarding hospitals, nursing homes, physicians. The health care industry does not operate as other free markets operate and it never will. It may be a commodity, but there is no choice.
You don't choose to need food, clothing, shelter, water, or any other basic need either.
The only reason you have decided that MEDICAL care is a need that is different from the above, is that there are "medical miracles" which are beyond the reach of people with ordinary incomes, and you want them to keep voting for the left, in the vain hopes that they might have these paid for by someone else.
In other words, you're only exploiting emotion, and in the process telling a big lie.
You have to have food, shelter, clothing, etc, LONG before you need any "expensive medicine". Any lack of those and your life ends in a short period of time - EVERY LIFE. They are, indeed, far more urgent and important than cancer treatment or heart surgery. Every single person who lacks those will generally die, and so so prematurely, by decades. And yet, even with the absolute, dead-if-you-don't-have-it need for those, you're not arguing that food, housing, and so on, be summarily taken over and socialized. But you are for true electives. It is absolutely true, you CAN choose to not buy medical care. It's also true you'll have a higher probability of premature death. But then again, what you choose to eat will MORE CERTAINLY cause premature death.
Technology lowers the cost, except when government interfers
70 years ago you would not have spent any money after a heart attack. Want to know why? The technology did not exist. Now, we know how to operate on a human heart, replace valves, have medicine to control blood pressure, etc. In the 80's you would have died from HIV. Want to know why? We had no technology to combat HIV.
"As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health
care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending. When GDP is growing, many Americans experience increases in income and will demand more health care services".
The funny thing is that you argued that affluence was a driver once, but now you aren't... Make up your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
We might be number one, but your graph doesn't show it. You presented a graph of health expenditures per capita. That says we spend more. It doesn't say costs are higher.
If everyone in America bought a luxury car, while everyone in Japan bought an economy car, then our expenditure per capita on automobiles would be higher, but that would not indicate our cars cost more since we didn't buy the same cars. If the people in Japan did buy a luxury car it might cost more, and if the people in America did buy an economy car it might cost less.
If you want to prove our costs are higher, then show the costs. Not expenditures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
First liberals froze wages so companies could not compete with wage increases for employees. Instead, they started adding health insurance benefits to compete. Then the liberals brought in medicaid and medicare. The combination of the two resulted in there being no direct relationship between the business (doctors) and the (customer). There was no longer any incentive for people to seek efficient healthcare because they weren't paying for it anymore. There was no longer any incentive to keep prices down for healthcare suppliers because their patients weren't seeking affordable prices.
It's true that a fragmented market has led to price increases and inefficiency, but the two leading causes of increased healthcare pricing are affluence and technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Those are the facts. It the same as with education. Education costs ballooned when the government started guaranteeing student loans. When government gets involved it distorts the marketplace and competition disappears. Without competition, there is no reason to keep prices low.
Tuition didn't start to balloon until the government subsidies started to erode. 100 years ago nobody could afford to go to university except for the rich. Medical school tuition at McGill is $6K, but they haven't decided to cut school funding, and yes, you can get a student loan for the tuition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
I don't know whether liberals truly do not understand basic concepts of economics or whether they remain willfully ignorant of them since it doesn't fit with liberal ideology. But the truth is the truth.
I don't know what you hope to achieve by harping on liberals. Wait, did you think I was one?
Which will be done via a single payer system, and not an NHS. The main reason is as follows: pragmatism and well, crap, we already have one in this country anyway, Medicare.
Is the current system a disaster? Yes. Will a single payer system be a disaster? Probably not, but it won't be a "good" system. Probably very average.
I came to this conclusion upon thinking about how much of a burden providing health insurance must be for businesses. Even pre-ACA, it's like a $5,000/year tab for a healthy employee. Also, I think compassion has entered the equation as well. And finally, people being bankrupt from medical bills essentially takes that person out of the economy for life.
I just don't see why we can't have it in this country.
THAT said, I have a message to the left: In this country, a public health care system WILL NOT work without having a ROBUST and THRIVING private health insurance and health care system with which millions of Americans with the means can be taken off the dole and not even use the public system. This will be vital. We do not have resources for 330 million unhealthy people to be on a public system.
So the left needs to do the following:
You need to completely and totally repeal the affordable care act in its entirety.
You need to roll back private health insurance regulation to the level of auto insurance.
We need to provide ample incentives for companies to provide private health insurance for their people as a benefit. If the bottom line just doesn't work, particularly for minimum wage workers at restaurants, then they just use Medicare.
The ultimate goal here is to prevent people from going into financial ruin due to circumstances they did not choose. We can also reduce the burden on businesses.
While I'm usually wary of government involvement, but simply put, I've concluded that healthcare exists outside of free market forces. It's one of those things that everyone will need at some point
Am I becoming a Democrat? Absolutely not. But I have a long road ahead of me to convince the right-wing in this country.
I think that we need to stop treating health as simply a commodity. There are purely financial aspects when it comes to healthcare, but profit should not be the driving force. Kind of like how (idealistically, although this is starting to change) we do with public schools.
I'm not sure the federal government running everything for health insurance is the best solution though. I think it might be handled better at a more local level.
Technology lowers the cost, except when government interfers
Another confused anarchist... LOL No. Technology doesn't lower the cost. 100 years ago there were no quadruple bypasses and now they are routine. Average cost: $70,000. There were no MRIs, no CAT scans, no organ transplants and no neurosurgery 100 years ago. We live longer than 100 years ago but there is a price to pay for all advancements in medical technology that we now enjoy and event the fact that we live longer is an additional cost of healthcare as the older people get the more healthcare they need hence the higher cost.
Government had nothing do with that. Sorry. lol. Try harder next time.
Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-21-2014 at 12:31 PM..
I am trending towards a healthcare model that rewards people for taking care of themselves.
Those with a normal BMI, non-smokers and non substance abusers get the lowest rates.
The 75+ % of adults who are overweight and/or smoke and/or are addicted to substances are required to pay substantial premiums or do without.
I'd agree but word is many of the smokers and obese people have the rep of dying young but, the hardcore "healthy" people MAY cost us MORE later in life because of dementia. Damn if you do and damn if you don't.
Why some folks are hell bent on having the least efficient, costliest health care delivery system in the world makes me use the ALL the time.
Relative to...what? What metrics are you using? What weight does each get?
Quote:
DME (Durable Medical Equipment, Big Pharm) certainly needs to be reigned in because of billing abuse, overcharging, over prescribing and so do docs for upcoding.
These are all different things. DME fraud has nothing to do with DME itself, rather an easily abused government reimbursement system.
Big Pharm is limited by onerous FDA requirements that necessitate charging a lot to make even a small profit for something they only have exclusivity on for 5-7 years.
A dreaded "failure to diagnose" or "failure to treat" ensures doctors over-test and over-prescribe lest their insurer drop them.
Upcoding is usually a mistake actually, real fraud looks much different.
So 50% of your examples star the government you praise so much as the root of the problem. Not a good track record.
Quote:
That's called corruption in the field. And, a lot of that has to do with the fact the "Private" companies are intertwined with public programs and steal from the public purse and trust.
Tell that to the VA.
Quote:
And Yes, Docs get paid for their work. But their "work" is not like other jobs.
No, it isn't. That's why they cost more.
Quote:
They don't talk you into having diabetes like a car dealer talks you into buying that car or "sell" you a broken bone like Realtors sell you a house. You might need/want a new dress but you don't need/want for black lung disease. You either have a condition or not, that needs to be treated.
You give yourself diabetes and then must pay to manage it. You broke it, you bought it.
Quote:
Let's not confuse the salary/payment that one gets in return for the the delivery of health care of medical disorders and twist it into being a "commodity" or elective service. We are talking the human body here. Not electrical wire, or tires, or clothing or even food. A medical disorder is not a commodity. Someone does not dream of or wish to "be sick". Unless, you are a hypochondriac or suffer from Munchausen by proxy syndrome and those are disorders, too (mental).
Uh, technically everything is an elective service. You can choose to manage your disease/injury yourself, or even ignore it and just live with it as long as possible. Choice is still an element.
Quote:
A burn victim does not wake up in the morning, and wish or plan to be burned over 90 percent of his body. A mother does not purchase a premature baby.
This is why we can choose to purchase insurance to hedge against those risks.
UMMM, would UHC mandate that physicians in the USA could not have private practices, that they would have to sign onto Bigbrothercare and accept Bigbrothercare-payments????
If Osamacare2 is not mandatory, wow, I could see a LOT of MDs saying screw-you Bigbrother....I am going into private practice...will have nothing to do with Osamacare2.
It's true that a fragmented market has led to price increases and inefficiency, but the two leading causes of increased healthcare pricing are affluence and technology.
This is absolutely not true.
The two factors in rising health care costs are:
Insurance
Regulation
Quote:
Tuition didn't start to balloon until the government subsidies started to erode. 100 years ago nobody could afford to go to university except for the rich. Medical school tuition at McGill is $6K, but they haven't decided to cut school funding, and yes, you can get a student loan for the tuition.
No, tuition ballooned when government made easy money available to spend on it and then told everyone that doing so was the way to prosperity.
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.
