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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 2 4
Then they better start saving their $$$$ and working their tails off to pay their own way. It simply isn't fair for some to be held as financial hostages by those less-responsible in the conduct of their lives. If their irresponsibility means they live a shortened life, well, they made their choices. Also, there are charities than can do some things.
It's kind of like building your house in a flood zone and not buying flood insurance, then asking to be financially bailed out when your house is wiped out. They want everyone else to pay them, but did they bother to help everyone out with the money they saved by not paying premiums? No, they just want the best of both worlds.
I know this for a fact, the more OPM in the mix, the higher costs will go, and the lower service quality will go. It is simply human nature to care less when it is money from some distant, unknown source, than when it came from the toil of your back and sweat of your brow.
Financial hostages. It's not usually about being irresponsible, but having a job that doesn't pay you 6 figures+ each year is a big part of it. Not everyone can be a doctor or lawyer or tech worker or investment banker. So the reality is is most won't be able to afford to self funded their health needs. Where do you draw your line?
If someone needs emergency treatment in order to still be fully functional, that will cripple them if they don't get it, isn't it better to give them that treatment, regardless of if they can pay or not, so they can go back to work and keep producing, rather than have them go on permanent disability just because they couldn't afford the bill, where then they aren't producing squat?
Then they better start saving their $$$$ and working their tails off to pay their own way. It simply isn't fair for some to be held as financial hostages by those less-responsible in the conduct of their lives. If their irresponsibility means they live a shortened life, well, they made their choices. Also, there are charities than can do some things.
It's kind of like building your house in a flood zone and not buying flood insurance, then asking to be financially bailed out when your house is wiped out. They want everyone else to pay them, but did they bother to help everyone out with the money they saved by not paying premiums? No, they just want the best of both worlds.
I know this for a fact, the more OPM in the mix, the higher costs will go, and the lower service quality will go. It is simply human nature to care less when it is money from some distant, unknown source, than when it came from the toil of your back and sweat of your brow.
The more OPM, the more HC will get done. Much in HC is always left undone. But not necessarily increased costs per encounter or procedure. Such would be single payer. Overall costs more, but per encounter less.
Some for the good, some for the bad. More will get done that should be done, more will be done that doesn't. The balance I don't know.
The more OPM, the more HC will get done. Much in HC is always left undone. But not necessarily increased costs per encounter or procedure. Such would be single payer. Overall costs more, but per encounter less.
Some for the good, some for the bad. More will get done that should be done, more will be done that doesn't. The balance I don't know.
With all due respect, that is exactly wrong. The medical professionals will simply raise prices to soak up the add'l money. That's just what happens when new OPM shows up.
Single payer will cause price-increases not only on more services being rendered, but also, and more importantly, more expense for the same procedure.
Look at the cost of auto body work. Body work funded by insurance is 2x to 3x more than the same job paid for with cash from the customer. They know it is OPM, so they jack up the rates on jobs covered by insurance.
Another thing, people should receive only in proportion to their contribution. A bum and a CEO do NOT merit or deserve the same level of treatment. What are you going to do, use the most expensive, latest and greatest procedure for every person that needs it, or ration it to those who can pay for it. If you don't ration it, the system will go bankrupt toot sweet as every Tom, Dick and Harry demands Cadillac treatment.
The only rational approach is to ration it using $$$ (just like everything else in society). People who have $$$ get the best cars, houses, clothes, jewelry etc. Such is the reward for working hard, taking risks etc., (and thereby contributing to society). It is how we keep score, and it is the only workable system, but when you flood the market with OPM, you price out of the reach of all but the very wealthy.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,619,501 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 2 4
With all due respect, that is exactly wrong. The medical professionals will simply raise prices to soak up the add'l money. That's just what happens when new OPM shows up.
Single payer will cause price-increases not only on more services being rendered, but also, and more importantly, more expense for the same procedure.
Look at the cost of auto body work. Body work funded by insurance is 2x to 3x more than the same job paid for with cash from the customer. They know it is OPM, so they jack up the rates on jobs covered by insurance.
Another thing, people should receive only in proportion to their contribution. A bum and a CEO do NOT merit or deserve the same level of treatment. What are you going to do, use the most expensive, latest and greatest procedure for every person that needs it, or ration it to those who can pay for it. If you don't ration it, the system will go bankrupt toot sweet as every Tom, Dick and Harry demands Cadillac treatment.
The only rational approach is to ration it using $$$ (just like everything else in society). People who have $$$ get the best cars, houses, clothes, jewelry etc. Such is the reward for working hard, taking risks etc., (and thereby contributing to society). It is how we keep score, and it is the only workable system, but when you flood the market with OPM, you price out of the reach of all but the very wealthy.
You are in the minority on this when it comes to healthcare, social darwinism is fading thank jeebus
You are in the minority on this when it comes to healthcare, social darwinism is fading thank jeebus
Yes, our society is, indeed, rotting as self-reliance, self-determination, and respect for one's obligations to his fellow citizens to not be a parasite, is, indeed, shriveling.
Thanks for helping point out how bad things are devolving to. Single payer, would serve to be the coup-de-grace on our society.
PS Sam is NOT your uncle, much less your milch cow.
Yes, our society is, indeed, rotting as self-reliance, self-determination, and respect for one's obligations to his fellow citizens to not be a parasite, is, indeed, shriveling.
Thanks for helping point out how bad things are devolving to. Single payer, would serve to be the coup-de-grace on our society.
PS Sam is NOT your uncle, much less your milch cow.
You might want to check out Somalia - no taxes & no government
With all due respect, that is exactly wrong. The medical professionals will simply raise prices to soak up the add'l money. That's just what happens when new OPM shows up.
Single payer will cause price-increases not only on more services being rendered, but also, and more importantly, more expense for the same procedure.
Look at the cost of auto body work. Body work funded by insurance is 2x to 3x more than the same job paid for with cash from the customer. They know it is OPM, so they jack up the rates on jobs covered by insurance.
Another thing, people should receive only in proportion to their contribution. A bum and a CEO do NOT merit or deserve the same level of treatment. What are you going to do, use the most expensive, latest and greatest procedure for every person that needs it, or ration it to those who can pay for it. If you don't ration it, the system will go bankrupt toot sweet as every Tom, Dick and Harry demands Cadillac treatment.
The only rational approach is to ration it using $$$ (just like everything else in society). People who have $$$ get the best cars, houses, clothes, jewelry etc. Such is the reward for working hard, taking risks etc., (and thereby contributing to society). It is how we keep score, and it is the only workable system, but when you flood the market with OPM, you price out of the reach of all but the very wealthy.
I haven't able to raise my charges for Medicare since the '80's. Single payer means the Feds set the reimbursements for all my services. So no, as a medical professional I could not raise my prices. And you should now see why most docs do not want single payer.
Single payer will mean more services rendered overall. And mostly at lower cost per due to central cost controls, similar to Medicare. More people covered, means more services rendered. Plus more gets done with many patients that previously had been delayed or left out entirely due to cost or inconvenience. More unnecessary stuff will also get done, unless there are new barriers to referrals, testing and procedures as compared to Medicare.
HC is unlike auto body work. Body work is very predictable with little uncertainty. There is not great deal of difference in cost and procedures with repairs one vehicle to the next. Certainly not as compared to the medical realm. And if it doesn't get done, you can still live a full life of health, happiness and productivity.
I would vote to keep private insurance along with a public option. As a doc and as a patient. As a patient I will want to spend more to get better service, broader and more complete coverage and wider networks. As a doc I would want the ability to continue to choose who I care for and what plans to join. But as far as rendering care, as a doc I try my best to render the same level of high quality medical service, and in all my patients' best interests. Irrespective of their insurance.
This is ridiculous. There's no reason why states can't handle health care on their own. It's clear that we've got huge differences between the states in how their citizens want to deal with the costs of health care. Fifty state laboratories working on the problem seems a lot smarter to me than trying to force a one-size-fits-all solution on the entire country.
This is ridiculous. There's no reason why states can't handle health care on their own. It's clear that we've got huge differences between the states in how their citizens want to deal with the costs of health care. Fifty state laboratories working on the problem seems a lot smarter to me than trying to force a one-size-fits-all solution on the entire country.
There have been state based experiments.
The reason none will work is simple - not enough money.
The HC costs just of their seniors about equals any state's total budget.
Just take your state's senior numbers and multiply by 10 grand.
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.
