^should we ask the ones that come here for care bc they cant get it in their country?

And your "conclusion" on why health system is "fucked" is pretty fucked itself.

What would be your solution? Pay doctors based on outcomes? Sounds great, lets think it through for a bit. How would we determine an acceptable outcome? So if you work an ER in a rural or poor setting and have a lower outcome due mostly to your patient base, do you just pay those doctors less for a certain procedure vs another doctor? So you only get paid 70% of what we pay other doctors? You realize this will just lead to doctors not seeing high risk patients on a larger scale right? Surgeons in particular are VERY aware of their surgical numbers and they typically dont want to mess with those as is. Now you are trying in payment to those numbers, meaning a lot more will be rejected for surgeries.

THe real problem is there are too many people and agencies between the consumer and the provider, thus increasing costs(to those who actually pay) AND increasing demand(among those who dont face the true cost).

Medicare currently has a system they use to track quality/outcomes. Eventually it will be tied to reimbursements and more and more docs will continue to drop it.imo

https://www.cms.gov/QualityInitiativesGenInfo/

I fill out these forms everyday.

Not to mention the ICD 10 codes are coming in 2013 which will be a HUGE pain in the ass for providers but a great data source for insurances companies and govt. Im hoping our EMRs will fill in most of the BS they are supposed to be asking with each diagnosis. (as if some pencil pusher sitting at the medicare office has any clue what any of it means) Oh you are treating an ulcer.. well we need to know how deep and wide the ulcer is in order for you to get paid... Crucial info for insurance companies and govt to have right there.


Of course I also plan on a large group of people demanding doctors become indentured servants at some point as well, for the "privilege" of working in the US.

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 2:26:09 PM

eyedrb sounds like a waitress bitching about tips.

1/31/2012 2:34:27 PM

Health insurance was invented to cover catastrophic illness. That's the purpose of insurance. High deductible health insurance does that, and it's pretty affordable.

Quote :

"you have no grasp of how much it costs, how responsibility is shared, or what society might look like 100 years from now as the end result of giving folks such a free pass. honestly in the short term you HAVE to let people fall through the cracks to prevent future meltdown. maybe it seems sick but especially in todays economic climate the nation cannot afford such anchors."

This hits on something that a lot of people don't want to face up to. It gets labeled as "social darwinism", and that's basically what it is. Some people are able to analyze situations and possible risks. They then plan accordingly. Others live their life not giving a shit until something bad happens, then they demand that someone pay for them to survive.

We're not going to settle this debate here. Some people think that the state should take care of you from cradle to grave. Others believe that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own well being, and that any help should be voluntary. The moral hazard introduced by a state-enforced social safety net is a shittier society at some point in the future. For people that don't want to work and want everything for free, it makes since to advocate a system where someone else is always footing the bill. Personally, this better describes my view:

"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

This debate is irrelevant, though. The U.S. will not have a federal single payer system. In the most likely scenario, people will get poorer, health care will get worse and less accessible, and we'll be crushed beneath the debt dumped on us by the leviathan state. Since no one is willing to deal with financial reality, we're kind of just fucked, and a lot of people are going to end up dead because of it. We could turn it around, probably...but we won't. We'll keep up with this delusional line of thinking that everything is basically okay, and with enough tinkering, it'll be the 90s again. Unfortunately, the ship has already sailed. Future prosperity has been sold off to banks, companies, foreign nations, and other politically well connected entities.

1/31/2012 3:02:08 PM

Quote :

"Unless you've actually had to pay for a visit to a doctor/hospital outside of a routine exam in your life, you are banned from talking about this topic. "

will you explain your experiences in this matter? You seem so ready to tell people they don't know what they're talking about, have you ever needed treatment and been refused, or gotten fucked by the system?

I don't like healthcare to be mandated or largely government sponsored. My major problem is, once you begin programs like this, there is no practical way to ever get rid of them, even if they are inefficient or just plain don't work. I can think of large government programs that don't work well, but can't think of any that have ever been done away with.

Health care is not a right, it's a service. a very expensive service, true, but doctors shouldn't be mandated to provide healthcare any more than they should be mandated to practice. Hypothetically speaking, if all of the doctors out there chose to quit practicing tomorrow, would they be denying us something we are all entitled to?

I won't argue health care doesn't need to change. but i'm sick and fucking tired of the government sticking their nose into everything.

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 3:05:51 PM

double post:

Quote :

""So although I won’t be running for office in 2012, I remain committed to advancing freedom by creating a free market solution for healthcare, making healthcare accessible and affordable for all. Our new company, Physician Care Direct, is transforming the way people pay for healthcare. You see, while today’s so-called “health insurance” is expensive, outpatient healthcare doesn’t have to be. Our solution allows physicians to offer their healthcare services directly to local businesses and individual patients as a non-insurance health benefit, bypassing the costs and complexities of third-party payers, and making care affordable. As Massachusetts' State Treasurer Timothy Cahill noted, today's American healthcare system is a textbook example of failed central planning. Medicare sets reimbursement rates from Washington, private insurers riff on that theme, and most patients go to the doctor expecting someone else to pay for a service where cost, price, and value are completely opaque.""

because i fucking love this.

1/31/2012 3:29:35 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb sounds like a waitress bitching about tips."

bravo

^great post. I do too


So as govt has taken over a progressively larger portion of our health care in this country over the last several decades people are unhappy with the results/costs. So naturally the solution is for them to take over MORE. hahah, amazing.

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 3:34:59 PM

No one ever answered the issue of poor people and healthcare other than by citing social darwinism. Honestly, that's pretty fucked up. In a society that is capable of producing so much wealth we should be able to provide basic care. Greater access to preventative care would greatly improve the health of the entire country on the whole. You people who are claiming that poor people can still afford health care are deluded. There are millions of jobs out there that are vital to a functioning economy that do not provide a standard of living high enough to afford such a luxury. Not caring for these people is leading to the disintegration of our advanced society. Everyone who works should be able to care for themselves but as it is there are people who work 70 hour weeks who can't make ends meet.

Health care should not be run as a for-profit business. That's the problem. All this money is being siphoned off the top (just like in every other business in America) and it's just going to pad the wallets of the super-rich. The system is focused on moving patients through the system as fast as possible and not on results, kind of like a restaurant trying to keep the turnover rate as high as possible. That doesn't mean we should move to eyedrb's dumbfuck system of paying according to results. But removing the profit motive from health care would inherently be the best and easiest way to help keep costs low. I know this violates every shred of being some of you possess but some things should just not be run for-profit. Like prisons. The cost to society is too great to let something of such great value as health care exist solely for profit.

1/31/2012 5:42:00 PM

Quote :

"Some people think that the state should take care of you from cradle to grave. Others believe that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own well being, and that any help should be voluntary. The moral hazard introduced by a state-enforced social safety net is a shittier society at some point in the future. For people that don't want to work and want everything for free, it makes since to advocate a system where someone else is always footing the bill."

You seem like a fair a balanced guy, d357r0y3r. What are the hazards of not having a safety net?

1/31/2012 5:48:46 PM

Quote :

"No one ever answered the issue of poor people and healthcare other than by citing social darwinism. Honestly, that's pretty fucked up. In a society that is capable of producing so much wealth we should be able to provide basic care. Greater access to preventative care would greatly improve the health of the entire country on the whole. You people who are claiming that poor people can still afford health care are deluded. There are millions of jobs out there that are vital to a functioning economy that do not provide a standard of living high enough to afford such a luxury. Not caring for these people is leading to the disintegration of our advanced society. Everyone who works should be able to care for themselves but as it is there are people who work 70 hour weeks who can't make ends meet."

I agree, people should get basic care. However, you've made the mistake of conflating society with the state. In Frédéric Bastiat's own words:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

-The Law

I agree that we have the resources for people to receive basic care. I might argue with you if you assert that we have the resources for every person, rich and poor, to receive top-notch, cutting edge care. Health care has to be rationed somehow. State provisioning is not a fair or efficient way of doing it.

Quote :

"Health care should not be run as a for-profit business. That's the problem. All this money is being siphoned off the top (just like in every other business in America) and it's just going to pad the wallets of the super-rich."

That's ridiculous. Doctors and hospitals can provide care without being "owned" by large corporations, but we'd better hope that they earn a profit. If they don't, then why we do we expect them to keep working? Doctors should work their ass off, dealing with dying or bloodied people (a circumstance most of us would find horrifying) so they can just break even?

Quote :

"You seem like a fair a balanced guy, d357r0y3r. What are the hazards of not having a safety net?"

The hazard is that we might have greater accessibility to health care and cheaper health care. Certainly, this is a threat to nation-states everywhere that have managed to convince people that health care services will cease to exist if government isn't holding a gun to the head of providers.

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2012 5:54:36 PM

Quote :

"What were you expecting, eyedrb? Half of your post boiled down to "I can't conceive of a reason, therefore it's all bullshit!""

Not really, the reason is they are collecting more info on the patient. The insurance is supposed to simply be a way to pay the doctor for their services. What medical reason do they need to know how large a wound is? That is for the doctor to worry about. imo

THe PQIs are voluntary now, but soon will be mandatory. These will be used as a way to factor in what a doctor will be paid for their services. (just reading the writing on the wall and the tone from politicians) Now medicare decides this based on a region. A doctor in the NE will be paid more for the same procedure than a doctor in the SE, currently. It tends to pay rural doctors much less for the same services now. Im suggesting cutting into that even further with your "results based" formula will make a bad situation worse... I know that is a hard to believe as govt doesnt have a history of doing just that.

http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes/

some good numbers there

1/31/2012 6:14:51 PM

Quote :

"I might argue with you if you assert that we have the resources for every person, rich and poor, to receive top-notch, cutting edge care. Health care has to be rationed somehow."

I'd be a fool not to agree with you there.

I'm not talking about doctors making too much money. These are highly trained, highly specialized professionals who have invested a lot of time and money into themselves. They clearly deserve an extremely competitive wage and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing them make more money. But that's not where money gets siphoned off the health care system. I'm talking about this.

Quote :

"The most lucrative sector for CEO pay was health care, which included three of the nine top-paid executives, including the two most lucrative packages: $145 million for John Hammergen of McKesson Corp. (MCK, Fortune 500), which distributes drugs and health and beauty care products to pharmacies; and $98 million for Joel Gemunder, who retired in July 2010 as CEO of Omnicare (OCR, Fortune 500), which provides drugs to nursing homes and other long-term care facilities."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm

WHAT. THE. FUCK. This is what I'm talking about. These people are skimming a ton of money off the top of an institution of social welfare to the detriment of greater society. Even if you believe that government would corrupt healthcare, it couldn't possibly corrupt to the point where more money was lost than to this do-nothing class of wealthy individuals. They're standing on the necks of the majority of Americans so they can extract wealth for personal gain. I don't see that as free market capitalism, I see it as evil in its purest form. The alternative to this for-profit system is lower costs, greater access, and higher wages for people who do the actual work. Why haven't we done this yet?

I think society and the state are a little more closely related than you give it credit. The state is a reflection of society. We have developed the American political structure based off of the values that our society most greatly admires. Individualism, class mobility, liberty and justice for all are some of the positive values. You can also find the negative values we hold dear such as greed, selfishness, and laziness. These are all incorporated into the state structure of our government in some way. I think when society helps to define the state in a positive manner, it has the potential to benefit society as a whole. On the flip side, the state can have influence over society. This is generally undesirable as it retards an evolving and free society.

I view healthcare in its current incarnation as a failing of society. I think government has not done enough to get rid of negative inputs. You probably believe that government itself is a negative input. But the fact of the matter is that we have the resources to provide basic care to pretty much everyone in the country. The primary thing preventing this is the for-profit system focused solely on money-making at the expense of greater accessibility and human lives. I believe government (existing as the only entity powerful enough to perform this duty) hasn't done enough to correct this failure.

1/31/2012 6:29:42 PM

Obama Admits Killing Civilians in Pakistan For First Time
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16804247

Quote :

"Mr Obama said drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties", adding that it was "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash"."

Independent estimates claim that civilian drone casualties number in the thousands, but the government refuses to release details.

Those drones not in unauthorized use over foreign countries are now being used by American police to monitor citizens.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3433/state-police-increasingly-turn-to-drones-to-monitor-u-s-citizens/category_list

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 6:42 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 6:39:23 PM

People are afraid of "death panels" in a public option. They don't want that decision to be made by bureaucrats.

They're somehow very comfortable with those same decisions being made by capitalists, however.

1/31/2012 6:41:24 PM

^^ posted this in the "jail" thread.

Quote :

" Year-----# attacks--#killed (min---max) 2005-------2--------6--------7 2006-------2--------23-------23 2007-------4--------56-------77 2008-------33-------274------314 2009-------53-------369------725 2010-------118------607------993 2011-------70-------378------536 2012-------3--------14-------16 Total-------286------1,731----2,696 "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

That's just in Pakistan. Doubt they're all terrorists.


Obama killed a 16 year old American, and nobody says a goddamn thing about it

Quote :

"In the days before a CIA drone strike killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last month, his 16-year-old son ran away from the family home in Yemen’s capital of Sanaa to try to find him, relatives say. When he, too, was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday, the Awlaki family decided to speak out for the first time since the attacks. “To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense,” said Nasser al-Awlaki, a former Yemeni agriculture minister who was Anwar al-Awlaki’s father and the boy’s grandfather, speaking in a phone interview from Sanaa on Monday. “They want to justify his killing, that’s all.” The teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver in 1995, and his 17-year-old Yemeni cousin were killed in a U.S. military strike that left nine people dead in southeastern Yemen."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story.html



Seriously, it amazes me that anyone can attack Obama from the right. Our current administration is EXECUTING AMERICAN CITIZENS and prosecuting and detaining whistleblowers for exposing these crimes, and the right-wing attack dogs only complain about "abuse of power" when Obama appoints judges for the National Labor Relations Board during a recess.

So if you try to appoint a judge to reach a quorum for US labor, you're a power-grabbing lunatic. If you kill an American teenager, it's business as usual for the right-wing. It's unbefuckinglievable.



[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 6:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/31/2012 6:43:34 PM

Quote :

"Not really, the reason is they are collecting more info on the patient. The insurance is supposed to simply be a way to pay the doctor for their services. What medical reason do they need to know how large a wound is? That is for the doctor to worry about. imo THe PQIs are voluntary now, but soon will be mandatory. These will be used as a way to factor in what a doctor will be paid for their services. (just reading the writing on the wall and the tone from politicians) Now medicare decides this based on a region. A doctor in the NE will be paid more for the same procedure than a doctor in the SE, currently. It tends to pay rural doctors much less for the same services now. Im suggesting cutting into that even further with your "results based" formula will make a bad situation worse... I know that is a hard to believe as govt doesnt have a history of doing just that."

I can think of several reasons why they might want that information, not the least of which is fraud prevention. Are you pro-fraud?

You seemed to be amazed that similar people doing similar work are paid differently in different parts of country. As for PQI, I'm glad you're against improvements in health care, though I do it find it odd that you're apparently against a tool being to be used in reducing costs and improving overall patient health.

1/31/2012 7:23:57 PM

george bush has caused the 4th year in a row of $1 trillion+ deficits!



[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 8:17 PM. Reason : +]

1/31/2012 8:16:44 PM

Quote :

"I can think of several reasons why they might want that information, not the least of which is fraud prevention. Are you pro-fraud? You seemed to be amazed that similar people doing similar work are paid differently in different parts of country. As for PQI, I'm glad you're against improvements in health care, though I do it find it odd that you're apparently against a tool being to be used in reducing costs and improving overall patient health. "

Ok, please explain your position. How is including the size of an ulcer on your billing code related to fraud prevention? Honest question, you may have something I havent considered.

PQI is one of those things that sound great in theory. Im suggesting that when you use it to start paying a doctor less for "poor outcomes" and mostly due to their patient base then you are creating an environment that creates LESS incentive to serve that base. Thus making the problem worse. I think I have been pretty clear on that, have I not?

^willy you forget the republicans control the house....so its their fault.

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 9:40 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 9:39:10 PM

Quote :

"I mean...I don't even...what?"

What is this I don't even

1/31/2012 9:58:16 PM

Quote :

"Ok, please explain your position. How is including the size of an ulcer on your billing code related to fraud prevention? Honest question, you may have something I havent considered."

I generally like to ask about details when I want to find out if someone is full of shit or not. I'm sure asking for obvious and straightforward details about surgical procedures would fall into the same category. Such information is probably also great for actuarial tables, care improvement, statistical analysis, etc.

Quote :

"PQI is one of those things that sound great in theory. [...]"

I'm glad you think merit and performance based things sound great!

Your objections are based on what you think performance based pay will be based on, not on what it will be based on (we don't know that yet). While I understand concerns that performance metrics need to be correctly defined and applied, I find it disturbing that your answer appears to be don't monitor doctor performance.

1/31/2012 11:05:07 PM

Quote :

"I generally like to ask about details when I want to find out if someone is full of shit or not. I'm sure asking for obvious and straightforward details about surgical procedures would fall into the same category. Such information is probably also great for actuarial tables, care improvement, statistical analysis, etc. "

They have audits if they expect fraud. They get FAR more information from those. And it isnt a detail about a surgical procedure, it is the size of an injury. Like I said the doctor should be concerned with this, not the accountant.

Quote :

"I'm glad you think merit and performance based things sound great! Your objections are based on what you think performance based pay will be based on, not on what it will be based on (we don't know that yet). While I understand concerns that performance metrics need to be correctly defined and applied, I find it disturbing that your answer appears to be don't monitor doctor performance. "

Good lord, you really jumped to conclusions on that one. Ive made it pretty clear what I fear will happen in the future with this. You know who does a pretty damn good job of monitoring doctor performance? Patients. And generally merit and performance usually lead to busier practices. So please stop pretending that bc I disagree with how our govt is planning to go about this that I am against merit or performance. I just think it is impossible to develop an equation to accurately reward or penalize merit/performance esp in something this complex. When patients will generally get this right over time.

2/1/2012 8:45:41 AM

Quote :

"They have audits if they expect fraud."

Perhaps such information can be used as a clue that an audit is needed? Oh, wait, let me guess: you have some other reason why such information couldn't possibly be useful to anyone else.

Quote :

"So please stop pretending that bc I disagree with how our govt is planning to go about this that I am against merit or performance."

Who's pretending? The exact impression you're giving is "They want to monitor my performance and I don't want them to because I'm a doctor and I know best and it's just not fair."

Yeah, patients always give unbiased reviews:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech.ars

2/1/2012 3:40:30 PM

^yet I see bad doctors struggle in business everyday while others have a long wait time. hmmm

Have you seen any of the many posts of people asking for recommendations for X kind of doctor just on this site alone? Society usually weeds out poor performers all the time, not just in health care. I can write a great review for a shitty pizza joint, but chances are it will still close down or adapt to stay open. What makes you think medicine is different? (non emergent care)


My opinion of collecting this information has nothing to do with fraud. Which is why I asked you why you felt that way.

2/1/2012 4:37:06 PM

Quote :

"Unless you've actually had to pay for a visit to a doctor/hospital outside of a routine exam in your life, you are banned from talking about this topic. If you have, than you know that the health care system in this country is fucked primarily for 2 reasons: 1. It is largely a for profit enterprise. 2. The standard of measurement for it's quality is utilization rate, rather than actual health outcomes."

and here comes Shrike, again, with the totally wrong conclusions, lol. tell us more about how the healthcare systems in other countries magically keeps those people from getting fat.

Quote :

"There is a reason why most polls show at least a plurality of Americans in support of single payer or nationalized health care."

Yes. Because most of those people either don't know what the fuck they are talking about and the rest just want a free ride.

Quote :

"Yes Loneshark. Insurance was invented because healthcare was too expensive due to insurance."

that might work, except for the fact that he also mentioned cartels and regulations. it's like you didn't even bother to read what the fuck he said.

Quote :

"There are millions of jobs out there that are vital to a functioning economy that do not provide a standard of living high enough to afford such a luxury."

and if the gov't didn't make it so god damned expensive in the first place, then more and more people could afford it.

Quote :

"All this money is being siphoned off the top "

AND YOU DON'T THINK IT WILL BE SIPHONED FROM ALL OVER THE FUCKING PLACE WITH A GOVERNMENT RUN SYSTEM? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING? You're talking about a government that pays 500 bux for a hammer and 1000 for a toilet seat as a beacon of efficiency?

Quote :

"Obama killed a 16 year old American, and nobody says a goddamn thing about it"

Why do Americans need trials? Everywhere is the battlefield now. if you don't wanna be killed, don't breathe!

2/1/2012 5:47:58 PM

To better protect America from imminent terrorist threats, love is a battlefield.

2/1/2012 6:42:58 PM

all the right-wing attack dogs like to shit on this ^ guy.


But I like him. He stands on the left and doesn't afraid...

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 6:46 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2012 6:45:38 PM

Quote :

"AND DOESN'T AFRAID"

2/1/2012 6:47:29 PM

yes. that was the joke.

2/1/2012 6:48:02 PM

must be an ARROVE type thing

2/1/2012 6:59:02 PM

U.S. Government is now recording your Skype conversations. Even Skype is surprised, claims there was never a search warrant.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57368523-261/feds-we-obtained-megaupload-conversations-with-search-warrant/

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 8:28 PM. Reason : HOPE]

2/1/2012 8:27:53 PM

when the revolution comes......people are gonna have to communicate and organize by snail mail.


buy stamps.



but seriously, this is the textbook definition of inverted totalitarianism.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 8:38 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2012 8:34:37 PM

Thanks for making yourself look bad burro by taking 2 sentences out of a 4+ paragraph post out of context.

Can someone with more than 2/5 of a brain please respond to my post?

2/1/2012 9:23:30 PM

Quote :

"Thanks for making yourself look bad burro by taking 2 sentences out of a 4+ paragraph post out of context."

what are you talking about? how do I look bad when you complain about an inefficiency of sorts and then suggest that the solution is to let the gov't, the most inefficient organization on the face of the planet, run the whole shebang? Really, you said that the gov't couldn't possibly corrupt more than the salaries of the top executives... how much medicare fraud is there, alone, a year? BILLIONS. Yes, the gov't wouldn't lose more money than 500 million. only several billion. And that doesn't take into account 500 dollar hammers and 1000 dollar toilet seats.

You complained a CEO making 150million when his company does ~100billion in business in a year. Is he being paid a lot? sure. ok, let's make his salary zero; we just reduced costs by 1% WAY TO GO!

2/1/2012 10:03:01 PM

I'm seeing a lot of opinion but you've yet to provide even a half of a fact.

The point is that the thing driving the medical industry is pure profit motive as opposed to increasing coverage to as many people as possible. It's kind of like the diamonds market. The world could produce enough diamonds for everyone in the world to have some. But why would you make less money selling more diamonds when you can raise the price and make more profit? The only problem is that health care is one of the primary factors in standard of living and not a luxury item (well it kind of is, but it shouldn't be).

The primary factor driving prices higher for healthcare isn't the government, it's the profit motive.

2/1/2012 10:27:36 PM

McKesson's earnings for 2010 are on their wikipedia page. it's a well-known fact that medicare fraud costs the gov't billions every year. do I need to cite a source for general knowledge, now?

and your point of the profit motive by pointing to CEO salaries is absurd. I can't think of a better way to make more money than to serve more customers. but then again, you might fundamentally misunderstand what insurance is, too. I don't know if you do this, but many people falsely equate health insurance with health care, and the two simply are not the same. you complain so vociferously about the profit motive, yet you completely ignore how market economics are NOT at work in the health care industry. You've got an entire sector where the actual cost of almost everything isn't borne by the customer and can barely even be known by the customer, yet are then shocked that the price is high. what the fuck are you expecting to happen?

and the primary factor isn't the government? then why the hell has the cost of it only skyrocketed with more and more government intervention into the system? you think we have a free market today? We've got a massive program called Medicare, you might have heard of it. It imposes price caps. That's not free-market. And then guess what those price-caps mean? the cost that isn't covered by Medicare gets passed along to others. Guess what that means? Price goes up! This isn't rocket science, dude.

Then, you've got massive mandates, both federal and state, on what insurance should cover. That's not a free market! And, since insurance pays less than what is billed, guess what doctors do to compensate? increase the price! There's no reason for insurance to cover a regular doctor's visit. Your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, so why should your health insurance cover the medical equivalent? The more mandates you tack on to a product that should be only catastrophic in nature, the more you move that product away from its intended purpose and function, yet then you are startled when that product fails to work in a satisfactory way. what the fuck were you expecting?

and, for someone asking for evidence, you sure aren't offering ANY evidence that the profit motive is what is driving up prices, except for a few CEO salaries which amount to barely 1% of revenues. it makes a great talking point, mind you, but you are lacking on any proof to your claim. Meanwhile, the notion that we have anything resembling a free market in health care is easily and roundly thrashed

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 10:41 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2012 10:39:59 PM

Let me get this straight. You're comparing diamonds to health care? What makes health care inherently different than housing or food? Sure, it's outrageously expensive, but there are reasons for that.

There isn't really an upper limit on the number of doctors and hospitals we can have. There's no "supply" to control as with diamonds. Well, actually, there is...and the government is doing it. Med school is expensive as shit due to excess credit driving up tuition. Various problems with the tax code encourage third party payers. The AMA is, essentially, a cartel. The FDA approves drugs that end up making people less healthy in the long run.

So, no, you can't even try to make the case that it's profit driving up cost and that government has nothing to do with it. That's ridiculous. Health care is arguably the most intervened in market, with the exception of maybe banking/financial industries. Whether or not you realize it, you want profit driven health care, because if it's not driven by profit, you can guarantee that the overall quality is going to go down. Everyone might be covered under your ideal system, but progress slows down and the end result is worse.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2012 10:41:17 PM

I just ignore burro whenever he talks about healthcare. He either (a) has no idea what he is talking about or (b) throws meaningless technicalities at you.

2/2/2012 2:54:04 AM

Number of people on the no-fly list has doubled in the past year. Still secret, with no accountability or appeals process. Spreading to trains and buses. Highway checkpoints soon to follow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/02/us-no-fly-list-doubles

2/2/2012 9:06:43 AM

Quote :

"I just ignore burro whenever he talks about healthcare. He either (a) has no idea what he is talking about or (b) throws meaningless technicalities at you."

This is why you never learn anything.

2/2/2012 10:12:45 AM

My name used to be on the no fly list... Had it removed, once I verified I wasn't the sex offender who as a similar name and birthday.

2/2/2012 10:18:48 AM

Quote :

"The point is that the thing driving the medical industry is pure profit motive as opposed to increasing coverage to as many people as possible. "

bless your heart

2/2/2012 10:37:46 AM

Why can't sex offenders fly on airplanes? Since when is it the federal government's job to enforce state parole violations? What keeps those nazi's boots on their feet without laces?

2/2/2012 11:58:55 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economists-expect-7th-straight-month-of-solid-hiring-unemployment-rate-likely-unchanged/2012/02/03/gIQA98cGmQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b

News Alert: U.S. economy adds 243,000 jobs in January; unemployment rate falls to 8.3 percent

2/3/2012 9:38:50 AM

How does this add to Obama's credibility? Obama created very few, if any, of those jobs. If anything, the credit should go to Ben Bernanke, with his brilliant zero rate interest rate policy. A little credit should go to those dirty, evil capitalists driven by "profit" and "returns". Assholes.

In all seriousness, the real story is how many dropped out of the labor force.



A record 1.2 million fell out of the labor force in January.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

2/3/2012 10:22:51 AM

Quote :

"In all seriousness, the real story is how many dropped out of the labor force."

bingo.

dipshit obama touting the unemployment rate going down, meaning less people visiting their local ESC office to collect their benefits, meaning giving up and not looking for a job anymore.

they drop off the radar and this fucker of a president assumes they got a job? well gee wilickers!

cue the obama fan club whining because someone posted a graph that wasnt them-

2/3/2012 10:30:39 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — In the most impressive surge for the job market since early last year, the United States added 243,000 jobs in January, far more than economists expected. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, the lowest in three years. Hiring accelerated across the economy and up and down the pay scale. The high-salary professional services industry added 70,000 jobs, the most in 10 months. Manufacturing added 50,000, the most in a year. “This is a very positive employment report from almost any angle,” said Brian Bethune, an economics professor at Amherst College."

Fuck unemployment rate. And I think pretty much everyone in TSB knows that the president doesn't have much, if any, effect on jobs. But the credibility of a president is highly correlated to unemployment which is critical in an election year. 4-5 more months of news like this will have Republicans pissing their pants.

2/3/2012 11:01:00 AM

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/03/10309613-obama-agenda-prayers-and-politics

What as asshole.

Quote :

"“For me, as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’ ” Obama said. “It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.”"

Jesus was not preaching to the government. He was preaching to the people. He said YOU should give up everything you own and help the poor. He did not say to hold a gun to the head of your neighbor and force them to help the poor.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : ]

2/3/2012 11:09:40 AM

Quote :

"dipshit obama touting the unemployment rate going down, meaning less people visiting their local ESC office to collect their benefits, meaning giving up and not looking for a job anymore."

Did Obama tout it already. And in terms of public credibility perception of course it is important.

Regarding the last part, fuck people who give up on finding work..

2/3/2012 11:26:51 AM

Wow, February and the flailing has already begun. Every economist was predicting around 100k-150k jobs created in January and an uptick in unemployment. Instead, we got a figure that blew those predictions out of the water, a drop in unemployment, and upward revisions for previous months. Spin it however you want, but this is great news for the President and it absolutely wrecks whatever case the GOP is going to try to make against him. Keep in mind that the only month that didn't see positive job growth since the stimulus kicked in was during the debt ceiling fight.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Quote :

"Job growth was widespread in the private sector, with large employment gains in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government employment changed little over the month."

For those who are going to come along and try and say these are government jobs so they don't count.

Quote :

"dipshit obama touting the unemployment rate going down, meaning less people visiting their local ESC office to collect their benefits, meaning giving up and not looking for a job anymore."

He's not touting the unemployment rate. In fact, Romney is the one mentioning the unemployment rate. Obama's team almost exclusively only talks about jobs created and trends, which are undoubtedly positive.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january

Quote :

"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign."

Seriously though, keep it up, this is extremely entertaining and it's only February! I can't wait to see the hysteria as we get into the fall and it's looking more and more like an Obama landslide in November.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM. Reason : time flys]

2/3/2012 11:28:08 AM

Yo, d357r0y3r and y0willy0

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Quote :

"The adjustment increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population in December by 1,510,000, the civilian labor force by 258,000, employment by 216,000, unemployment by 42,000, and persons not in the labor force by 1,252,000. Although the total unemployment rate was unaffected, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio were each reduced by 0.3 percentage point. This was because the population increase was primarily among persons 55 and older and, to a lesser degree, persons 16 to 24 years of age. Both these age groups have lower levels of labor force participation than the general population."

I know , I know, zerohedge or whatever blog you get your data from said 1.2 million people stopped looking for work in January, but that number is actually due to a population adjustment based on census data. So sorry

2/3/2012 1:08:12 PM

No one said 1.2 million people stopped looking for work. Read carefully. 1.2 million left the labor force, which is a substantial jump. When you're calculating percentages and a huge number of people are taken out of the equation, it's going to look like things are getting better. In reality, we've just got less people working, and we're squeezing more productivity and of the ones that are working.

2/3/2012 1:20:26 PM