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.
Your rationale is illogical.
Rationing of services already occurs even with top of the line coverage.
Quality & Innovation in insurance? Quality is pay the bill. The only innovation they have at their disposal is inventing ways to exempt themselves from a claim, causing doctors to hire a full blown administrative staff to chase them down like children for basic contract obligations. How much do you suppose that costs, since every realized cost ultimately gets passed down to consumers?
Anyone else concerned about rates going up-- tell me when they failed to go up exponentially since 1990. I worked for a fortune 500 company with excellent bennies but kept paying more and more for less and less policy until it stopped being a bennie. My corporation had considerable bargaining power and were frustrated to no end attempting to negotiate. They went shopping around and found they were in Russia because there was only one brand with a different label. Small business doesn't stand a shot in the dark winning a fair policy if fortune 500 can't manage.
Contrast my insurance premiums with the story of that Doctor in NYC who put his patients on a pre emptive payment plan for regular care- something like $25 odd a month. The NYS insurance commissioner frowned. Wonder who blew the whistle on him? Guaranteed it wasn't his patients who otherwise could not afford any doctor. Why would insurance companies be so vexed when Doctors cut out the middleman?
True rationing occurs but if you don't like what one insurance company will cover you can choose another one. Try that with single payer.
Quality and innovation relates to the provision of services. If Big Pharma and Providers are defacto government employees through a single payer system innovation and quality will suffer.
There are many reasons premiums increase but most is due to increases int he cost of proving care, provider costs, improvement in technology, aging population etc. Even Medicare increased their premiums and this is the gang that will magically reduce healt care costs and insurance costs. It is laughable to think increasing 30 million more people will reduce costs. 30 million more people chasing the same number of resources we have now is a doomed to increase costs a lot.
Increase competition by allowing insurance to be sold across boarders. Competition isn't hindered by too little government intervention but because of too much.
True rationing occurs but if you don't like what one insurance company will cover you can choose another one. Try that with single payer.
Quality and innovation relates to the provision of services. If Big Pharma and Providers are defacto government employees through a single payer system innovation and quality will suffer.
Increase competition by allowing insurance to be sold across boarders. Competition isn't hindered by too little government intervention but because of too much.
Riiiight because insurance companies are so eager for new customers these days, especially those who need health insurance.
With single-payer EVERYONE is covered.
Quote:
What about medical research?
Much current medical research is publicly financed through the National Institutes of Health. Under a universal health care system this would continue. For example, a great deal of basic drug research, for example, is funded by the government. Drug companies are invited in for the later stages of “product development,” the formulation and marketing of new drugs. AZT for HIV patients is one example. The early, expensive research was conducted with government money. After the drug was found to be effective, marketing rights went to the drug company.
Medical research does not disappear under universal health care system. Many famous discoveries have been made in countries with national health care systems. Laparoscopic gallbladder removal was pioneered in Canada. The CT scan was invented in England. The treatment for juvenile diabetes by transplanting pancreatic cells was developed in Canada.
It is also important to note that studies show that, in the U.S., the number of clinical research grants declines in areas of high HMO penetration. This suggests that managed care increasingly threatens clinical research. Another study surveyed medical school faculty and found that it was more difficult to do research in areas where high HMO penetration has enforced a more business-oriented approach to health care.
Finally, it appears that the increasing commercialization of research is beginning to slow innovation. Drug firms’ increasing reliance on contract research organizations (and for-profit ethical-review boards) has coincided with a sharp drop in innovative new drugs and a spate of “me-too” drugs - minor variations on old drugs that offer little benefit other than extended patent life.
Won’t competition be impeded by a universal health care system?
Advocates of the “free market” approach to health care claim that competition will streamline the costs of health care and make it more efficient. What is overlooked is that past competitive activities in health care under a free market system have been wasteful and expensive, and are the major cause of rising costs.
There are two main areas where competition exists in health care: among the providers and among the payers. When, for example, hospitals compete they often duplicate expensive equipment in order to corner more of the market for lucrative procedure-oriented care. This drives up overall medical costs to pay for the equipment and encourages overtreatment. They also waste money on advertising and marketing. The preferred scenario has hospitals coordinating services and cooperating to meet the needs of their communities.
Competition among insurers (the payers) is not effective in containing costs either. Rather, it results in competitive practices such as avoiding the sick, cherry-picking, denial of payment for expensive procedures, etc. An insurance firm that engages in these practices may reduce its own outlays, but at the expense of other payers and patients.
Of course insurance companies want new customers that is how they make money.
If you want to go down this path I will provide link after link of people dying due to lack of resources under socialized medicine. The government is incredibly inefficient when it comes to allocating resources, the private sector is much better.
Here is my question: why don't insurance companies cover all or just at least some of the costs of smoking cessation programs? You know, anti-smoking drugs & the like. It's BS that they don't cover it...money coming in for them perhaps?
Of course insurance companies want new customers that is how they make money.
If you want to go down this path I will provide link after link of people dying due to lack of resources under socialized medicine. The government is incredibly inefficient when it comes to allocating resources, the private sector is much better.
So you're telling me insurance companies don't deny coverage to people?
I guess you've never seen Sicko where the woman talks about her job working for an insurance company where she denies people coverage.
Here is my question: why don't insurance companies cover all or just at least some of the costs of smoking cessation programs? You know, anti-smoking drugs & the like. It's BS that they don't cover it...money coming in for them perhaps?
Because they are over the counter products for the most part. It really would be more beneficial for those paying for insurance to cover the cost of smoking cessation products because it will cause the overall cost of insurance go down.
I must say I do find this complaint laughable in light of the fact that a person will willingly spend $7'day for a product that will at the least injure them or at worst kill them. Yet they balk about spending a fraction of that to protect themselves. Pretty illogical.
True rationing occurs but if you don't like what one insurance company will cover you can choose another one. Try that with single payer.
The notion that it would be any different with another is also fallacy. Collusion in the industry must be happening when my HR director goes shopping and finds nothing but same old. It's not competitive. You're speaking of an ideal capitalism, and capitalism isn't happening so long as lobbyists are in DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Quality and innovation relates to the provision of services. If Big Pharma and Providers are defacto government employees through a single payer system innovation and quality will suffer.
Do you recall any disease that's been cured for the last 30 yrs with innovation. The meds they market are management drugs, not oriented toward cures. Cures aren't profitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Increase competition by allowing insurance to be sold across boarders. Competition isn't hindered by too little government intervention but because of too much.
They've already been given a great deal of latitude and surprise surprise they abused it. No thanks, been there, done that, have several t shirts. Reducing costs for the big picture would involve everyone taking modest compensation for a larger pool of customers. They won't be in the poor house, but may realize considerable savings not having to sponsor anymore reindeer games. How many billions has each industry in question squandered on lobbying alone? Add that all up with modest compensation and they're already ahead.
I'd much rather a straightforward policy like the one with that NYC doctor. The insurance industry won't let me have that, correct? What else can and can't we have because this industry dictates? Again, free market is NOT in effect here.
ps agree with you about smoking cessation. If any of them were 100% effective it might make sense, but when willpower is the lions share of the efficacy, thats not on anyone else but the smoker.
Last edited by harborlady; 12-20-2009 at 10:37 PM..
Reason: PS
The notion that it would be any different with another is also fallacy. Collusion in the industry must be happening when my HR director goes shopping and finds nothing but same old. It's not competitive. You're speaking of an ideal capitalism, and capitalism isn't happening so long as lobbyists are in DC.
Do you recall any disease that's been cured for the last 30 yrs with innovation. The meds they market are management drugs, not oriented toward cures. Cures aren't profitable.
They've already been given a great deal of latitude and surprise surprise they abused it. No thanks, been there, done that, have several t shirts. Reducing costs for the big picture would involve everyone taking modest compensation for a larger pool of customers. They won't be in the poor house, but may realize considerable savings not having to sponsor anymore reindeer games. How many billions has each industry in question squandered on lobbying alone? Add that all up with modest compensation and they're already ahead.
I'd much rather a straightforward policy like the one with that NYC doctor. The insurance industry won't let me have that, correct? What else can and can't we have because this industry dictates? Again, free market is NOT in effect here.
ps agree with you about smoking cessation. If any of them were 100% effective it might make sense, but when willpower is the lions share of the efficacy, thats not on anyone else but the smoker.
You are acusing probably one of the most hated industries of collusion. Don't you think the Feds may pick up on that if it were true? You accuse them of collusion in one breath but dismiss increasing competition by selling insurance across boarders.
Next you accuse big Pharma of intentionally not creating curative drugs because they are not profitable. First that is wrong antibiotics jump to mind, they are cures. If I gave it more thought I could probably come up with dozens. Secondly it is this kind of bizzare blind hatred of things we don't understand that allows our politicians fool us with the kind of slop they are trying to force on us.
Car insurance is on it's way up as well. A friend of mine in NJ with an auto insurance agency is folding up the business shortly because the franchise and underwriting fees have ballooned making her no longer competitive. That's all folks! She put 4 children through college with that business, so I'm certain it wasn't her mismanagement.
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.
