Quote :

"And "cheaper?" Hardly. Governments can't do anything cheaper than private markets can."

wasn't there something about privately-funded portions of medicare costing more than their publicly-funded alternatives?

also, i'll direct your attention to basically every other country in the world for an example of governments "doing it cheaper."

ALSO, i saw this actual news piece on pbs about a year ago and they do talk about a lot of the problems that you bring up. of course, it was an hourlong special and this is a ~1 page summary of that special.

most of the summary though just speaks about the specific histories of each plan and their differences.

4/14/2009 8:53:31 AM

^ lower costs are primarily achieved by cost controls and rationing, both of which have perverse side effects.

4/14/2009 9:44:51 AM

i don't know about "perverse" but there are definite down sides to every health care plan out there. i think that our current health care system is worse than most in that we pay a lot of money, still have to go through a lot of red tape, and often can get screwed out of coverage even when we have insurance.

4/14/2009 10:08:14 AM

Quote :

"Very little mention of the rationing of care that occurs in every gov't run system."

I take it you only read the article and did not watch the video. I agree that the article was more biased. The video went into detail, however, describing the detriments of each foreign system.

Quote :

"And "cheaper?" Hardly. Governments can't do anything cheaper than private markets can. It's kind of, you know, a fact."

Yeah, except, you're kind of, you know, wrong.

Unless, of course, you'd like to share with us what constants exist within each system to determine said fact.

Quote :

"Interesting stuff on that site."

I'm assuming you're referring to the other episodes they have available. Another one that I liked was the Wal*Mart episode. My girlfriend noticed that their logo changed from a tilde to a star that resembles that of the flag of China, which I found hilarious.

If I'm not mistaken, they archive transcripts of all of their interviews; that way, you can read parts that were edited from the final product.

[Edited on April 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM. Reason : wally]

4/14/2009 4:28:49 PM

Quote :

"i think that our current health care system is worse than most in that we pay a lot of money, still have to go through a lot of red tape, and often can get screwed out of coverage even when we have insurance."

I agree, but most of the plans I've seen for government involvement have been to use the current system but have the fed pay for it.

I would much rather have an out of pocket system + accident insurance. It would lower per person costs for routine and minor stuff for the majority of americans while giving them more choice. Lower costs increase access and then for those who still dont make the cut, have their expenses paid by the fed. You'd tack it on to wellfare or food stamps or something similar. Sure there will be the traditional government waste for those people, but it would be much better than massive government waste on everyone.

You'd also lower employer expenses since they dont have to deal with your insurance plans. You'd get your accident insurance like you do car insurance and just like with car insurance your quote would be based on your current health and habbits. So if you're in shape and you get regular checkups (100% out of pocket) they lower your premium. And vice versa. Those who smoke or are overweight (thats me) pay more for their premiums and have insentives to quit/loose weight/get healthy. Even if they dont improve their own health, they're paying more into the system to offset the increased healthcare they consume.

The only place this kind of system would really break down is for people with genetic problems or chronic diseases (AIDS,diabeetus,cancer, etc...) It may just be that government has to absorb those costs. Donations to charities that help those people would be 100% tax deductions. I dont know.

The short of it would be that the majority of americans would be able to get care for less money and there would still be a safety net for the poor.

4/14/2009 5:11:52 PM

Quote :

"also, i'll direct your attention to basically every other country in the world for an example of governments "doing it cheaper.""

and joe down the street will sell me pills for "cheaper" than the drug store, but I don't exactly trust him...

Quote :

"i think that our current health care system is worse than most in that we pay a lot of money, still have to go through a lot of red tape, and often can get screwed out of coverage even when we have insurance."

and you think a gov't system will have less red tape? really? And what would you call it when the gov't denies your request for a life-saving surgery? if the gov't is your "insurance," and you are paying for it w/ your tax-dollars, then aren't you being "screwed out of coverage?"

Quote :

"The video went into detail, however, describing the detriments of each foreign system."

Something tells me they could have done a better job at summarizing the entire show in that case, instead of slamming America's system only in the summary...

Quote :

"I would much rather have an out of pocket system + accident insurance."

You mean the way it used to be before Medicare and Medicaid and endless gov't regulations on insurance? hmmm...

4/14/2009 10:26:24 PM

Quote :

"and you think a gov't system will have less red tape? really? And what would you call it when the gov't denies your request for a life-saving surgery? if the gov't is your "insurance," and you are paying for it w/ your tax-dollars, then aren't you being "screwed out of coverage?""

actually our health care system is far more complicated than most. it's really quite bewildering in many instances. and i would agree that if the gov't denied a life-saving surgery i'd be getting screwed out of coverage just the same as a private insurance company. what's your point?

4/14/2009 10:29:23 PM

1. regulate insurance companies, doctors and hospitals in a variety of asinine ways.
2. fail to apply a modicum of common sense in malpractice law.
3. underpay for free services for poor ( or "poor") driving up the prices artificially for those who actually pay for the healthcare.
4. complain that "free market" medicine does not work.
5. solve the "problem" 4 by doing more of 1 and 3, claim that rationing and forced exercise/dieting etc... will not occur.
6. legislate behavioral regulation on the basis of "the public good", after all we all pay for each other's healthcare.
7. feign regret for 6. ( see your social security card, notice how that "not being used for identification" has worked out )
8. be equally miserable, but hey at least it's fair and by golly you can feel warm and fuzzy because you forced your vision of health and well-being on other less smart individuals.

[Edited on April 14, 2009 at 10:50 PM. Reason : .]

4/14/2009 10:49:44 PM

you say that ours is "worse than most," and list those reasons.

My point is that what you propose is all of those and more...

4/14/2009 10:50:33 PM

so do you think that our health care system is fine the way that it is?

if not, what needs to be improved and how?

4/16/2009 2:00:10 PM

of course our system is not fine the way it is. and how would I improve it? I'd get the government the fuck out of it. It'd be a hell of a lot better that way. mathman did a fine job of explaining the problem

4/16/2009 11:07:17 PM

so no government regulation whatsoever?

do prescription drugs need to be tested?

do hospitals need to be inspected?

should insurance companies just be trusted to do what's in the best interest of the insured?

i mean no government whatsoever? you think this is the answer?

4/16/2009 11:15:19 PM

^^ mathman also believes the world is 6000 years old, I wouldn't necessarily trust his reasoning.

4/16/2009 11:22:07 PM

Having lived in a system with government regulated health care, I'm not looking forward to returning to the mess back in the States next year

4/17/2009 12:41:06 AM

^^ nice ad hominem, there, buddy. Totally unrelated, and you know it

4/17/2009 3:37:40 AM

maybe, but i'm not sure YECs should really get a say in much of anything on the subjects of "how things work." The logic and reason parts of their brains clearly don't work.

4/17/2009 3:58:19 AM

fantastic ad hominem. address his argument, not his other beliefs

4/17/2009 3:57:04 PM

Lets bring salisburyboy back, and address his arguments too.

4/17/2009 4:01:21 PM

we did address his arguments. and then we called him a loon

4/17/2009 4:07:43 PM

Quote :

"do prescription drugs need to be tested?"

Why would this necessarily have to be done by the government? Intermediaries and private certifiers would suffice. Distributors, like Walgreens, would find it in their interest to fund private certification by a consumer reports-like entity so as to avoid the reputation of selling life-threatening drugs and thus garner the necessary consumer confidence to attract customers. This would leave the decision to doctors and patients, who can make the best decision based on their own circumstances. If an individual is dying from a disease that has a potential, albeit untested, cure, they and their physician can weigh the risks and benefits of trying the drug without being forced by the FDA into waiting for their cumbersome, lengthy review.

Quote :

"do hospitals need to be inspected?"

There are already private entities that inspect and certify hospitals. Furthermore, a hospital, like any other business, would not be able to sustain itself if it put the patient at risk. People would simply vote with their feet and use the hospital that is deemed safest. (E.g. restaurants can legally operate with a “C” grade, but are incentivized to achieve an “A” if they expect to be profitable. While doing so will incur more costs, the increase in demand more than compensates.)

Quote :

"should insurance companies just be trusted to do what's in the best interest of the insured?"

When not under the protection of government regulations, insurance companies would be forced to compete for their business at a much greater degree than they do today (interstate restrictions, a government-induced employer-sponsored insurance system and burdensome regulations insulate insurance companies from having to compete as intensely as they would without these regulations). Just as Best Buy has an incentive not to stiff its customers on their protection plans, insurance companies would have to reasonably honor its commitments else be forced out of business as consumers vote with their feet.

Quote :

"Having lived in a system with government regulated health care, I'm not looking forward to returning to the mess back in the States next year"

So the U.S. system is not government regulated?


[Edited on April 19, 2009 at 8:45 AM. Reason : /]

4/19/2009 8:44:46 AM

so when a health insurance company decides to not cover an expensive procedure, the insured is just supposed to shop around for a different company? really?

4/19/2009 1:31:24 PM

When they die, the company will lose reputation and then other people can just shop differently.


This is what libertarians really think.

4/19/2009 1:41:16 PM

Because the government would never do this, either.

Or, if it does, it's okay. Just not when insurers do it.

4/19/2009 2:14:42 PM

^^ yep. and furthermore, they believe perfect/symmetrical information flow to and from the drug companies and patients will somehow magically appear if the gov't takes its ugly nose out of their business.

4/19/2009 2:38:57 PM

Quote :

"Or, if it does, it's okay. Just not when insurers do it."

For a REAL example, there is a medicine that is injected into the eye to help with wet armd. Some insurances cover it, others do not. Its pretty expensive at around 5k per injection and several injections needed over months for treatment. This same drug IS covered in UK, but only AFTER you have gone totally blind in one eye...cost cutting measure.(they have recently laxed those "requirements", after several lawsuits) A sign of govt run healthcare.

Here is you non fox news link for your consideration

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_pr140607.hcsp

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75769.php

4/19/2009 2:55:49 PM

Oh boy some socialized medicine used to do this is clearly relevant

4/19/2009 3:33:04 PM

Quote :

"14 June 2007 Recommendations published by NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) today (14 June) will condemn 20,000 people each year in the UK to blindness, despite sight-saving drugs being available, says the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)."

2007 seems so very, very far away.

But hey, it's okay when it's the government doing these things.

4/19/2009 3:42:39 PM

no matter what system we will continue to have problems. I personally feel we have the best available, but its getting worse as the decisions are being made by fewer and fewer people.. none of which are the doctor or the patient.

Here is another for you foolish, I doubt this one sinks in either.

http://cornerstonegroup.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/nice-u-turn-welcomed-by-peter-bone-mp-%E2%80%93-lead-campaigner-to-make-wet-eye-treatments-available-on-the-nhs/

Quote :

"If this sad episode shows us anything, it is that the NHS must be radically reformed so that proven drugs are no longer denied to patients because of a slow and bureaucratic system which makes decisions based on finance rather than clinical need."

Quote :

"Today NICE has at last issued its final guidance on the treatment of Wet Eye Age Related Macular Degeneration (Wet AMD) on the NHS. However, why has it taken over two years for NICE to make this decision and therefore allow thousands of people in England and Wales to go blind unnecessarily? Around 24,000 people contract Wet AMD a year in this country and unless treated promptly, will result in blindness in as little as three months."

4/19/2009 5:47:23 PM

meh. it's just a wet eye. give them a towel, that;s all they need, right?

4/19/2009 6:04:45 PM

Quote :

"So the U.S. system is not government regulated?"

That's not what I meant and you know it.

4/20/2009 1:57:21 AM

Quote :

"no matter what system we will continue to have problems. I personally feel we have the best available"

perhaps the best if you have the money. probably the worst (in the industrialized world) for the average american.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:10 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 2:07:10 AM

Quote :

"When they die, the company will lose reputation and then other people can just shop differently. This is what libertarians really think."

qft

4/20/2009 2:53:18 AM

Quote :

"no matter what system we will continue to have problems. I personally feel we have the best available, but its getting worse as the decisions are being made by fewer and fewer people.. none of which are the doctor or the patient."

so we should get rid of insurance companies, sounds ok to me.

do you not realize you can't talk about bad decisions and problems in health care in the US without addressing the insurance companies? they have a shitton more to do with decisions made daily with regards to care than the government can dream of in this country.

Quote :

"If this sad episode shows us anything, it is that the NHS must be radically reformed so that proven drugs are no longer denied to patients because of a slow and bureaucratic system which makes decisions based on finance rather than clinical need."

seriously, stop bringing this NHS stuff because ITS NOT WHAT ANYONE IS PROPOSING. we are not nationalizing hospitals, we are not making private insurance illegal. everyone would still have the CHOICE to have private or public. post all the stats about nationalized hospitals and systems where people can only have gov. provided insurance all you want but it's not the point at all.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 1:55:22 PM

No, you're arguing for taking our exsiting fucked up system and having the government pay for it. It doesn't work now, why would it work if the fed is paying for it?

Out of pocket + accident insurance. Gov. pays for those who still cant afford it. Unless I'm missing something big I cant imagine why you'd want any other system.

4/20/2009 2:11:22 PM

Quote :

"No, you're arguing for taking our exsiting fucked up system and having the government pay for it. It doesn't work now, why would it work if the fed is paying for it?"

No, i'm talking about it being another option for those not on medicaid/medicare. hell, i'd be fine with just expanding those existing programs to those 55+ or raising the minimum income for medicaid. i would never support the government being the only provider/payer for everyone, just for those who need affordable coverage and can't get into existing programs. or maybe they're just dumb rubes who just need to bootstrap themselves up.

Quote :

"Out of pocket + accident insurance. Gov. pays for those who still cant afford it. Unless I'm missing something big I cant imagine why you'd want any other system."

maybe because the out of pocket costs are keeping people from having coverage? if you think this is a good system, great for you. still doesn't mean it's not making people bankrupt. It's not an insignificant number of people that don't currently have coverage.

I actually think this plan is the better one out there right now:

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

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 2:18:13 PM

PinknBlack, you do realize they do have a public and private hospitals in europe right.

At least when you have a crappy insurance company YOU have a choice of going to somewhere else. Sounds much better than the govt taking from you and giving you choices. Besides, who basically mandated the employer provided healthcare, which then allows insurance companies to offer products more for companies than individuals? Remind me again please.

And the govt currently provides just over 50% of healthcare in this country right now. The point was to show you how the same bullshit bureaucracy will still be present, you seem to want more of it. And dont be naive of giving people the choice of govt vs private.

Exactly shaggy, HSAs with extremely high deductibles for the big stuff.

You want to lower the costs of a procedure WHILE improving the procedure? STOP COVERING IT

4/20/2009 2:20:43 PM

Quote :

"seriously, stop bringing this NHS stuff because ITS NOT WHAT ANYONE IS PROPOSING. we are not nationalizing hospitals, we are not making private insurance illegal. everyone would still have the CHOICE to have private or public. post all the stats about nationalized hospitals and systems where people can only have gov. provided insurance all you want but it's not the point at all."

Except the NHS stuff is relevant to one particular point: any government plan, whether or not it competes with private plans, will also seek to deny claims as a cost-minimization measure. It's not as if financial pressures up and disappear under any particular iteration of a government-run (or government-funded, or whatever) system. The same financial pressure to minimize costs appears - simply look at medicare reimbursements if you need further examples.

So, I come back to the original point: why is it okay when the government denies claims, as it will inevitably do?

4/20/2009 2:21:03 PM

no shit they'll try to do the same thing. i never said it was perfect. what is preferable: this or no coverage at all?

Quote :

"PinknBlack, you do realize they do have a public and private hospitals in europe right. At least when you have a crappy insurance company YOU have a choice of going to somewhere else. Sounds much better than the govt taking from you and giving you choices. Besides, who basically mandated the employer provided healthcare, which then allows insurance companies to offer products more for companies than individuals? Remind me again please."

And if you don't like the gov. plan you can leave and go to that crappy insurance company. Of course. You have the choice. I'm not sure where youre coming from trying to act like im gung ho for employer provided insurance, other than the fact that you're trying to trap me into this "GOVERNMENT IS AWESOME" box you like your liberals to fit into.

in the end i could give two shits who provides the care as long as people dont die because the government or private sector or whatever doesnt let them rot and i already know what youre answer to that is.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 2:22:51 PM

False dilemma. This is not the only set of choices we have.

However, my point is simply that claim denial by the private market is one of the major points liberal proponents of universal healthcare. Yet this is not unique at all; the same financial pressures exist regardless of your choice of system. Therefore, my point is that claim denial isn't an argument in favor of any given system.

4/20/2009 2:24:11 PM

so what do you propose we do with the millions who have no coverage? hope the market sorts it out?

I still think the public-private reform measure here is the best bet:

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

Quote :

" 1. Ensure that all Americans have health care coverage; 2. Make sure health care coverage is affordable and portable; 3. Implement strong private insurance market reforms; 4. Modernize federal tax rules for health coverage; 5. Promote improved disease prevention and wellness activities, as well as better management of chronic illnesses; 6. Make health care prices and choices more transparent so that consumers and providers can make the best choices for their health and health care dollars; and 7. Improve the quality and value of health care services. "

Youre not tied to employer plans as much, provide transparency, revise the tax rules. Of course it's more than this list. It's bipartisan as well, you have people from Dan Inoye to Lamar Alexander supporting it.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:31 PM. Reason : /]

4/20/2009 2:27:39 PM

Pink you seem to be stuck in this idea that your insurance provider should pay for everything. Thats really whats gotten us into this mess. They aren't really insurance providers if you expect them to pay for every little bit of your care.

Quote :

" maybe because the out of pocket costs are keeping people from having coverage? if you think this is a good system, great for you. "

We dont have a purely out of pocket system now. We have a mix of government subsidized healthcare and employer subsidized healthcare.

It would cost less if everyone paid out of pocket and thats what im getting at. In an out of pocket system the ammount of money that employers put in to subsidize their employees healthcare would go directly to employees. The employee then chooses whoever he wants to see and then picks an insurance provider to cover accidents.



The end result is lower costs for docs, lower costs for patients, lower costs for hospitals. More people would be able to cover themsevles without government help in this system, and for the rest you have the fed give them a stipend similar to wellfare.

4/20/2009 2:34:14 PM

Quote :

"so what do you propose we do with the millions who have no coverage? hope the market sorts it out?"

You mean the 3.5% of the population who are not A) Currently insured, B) Wealthy enough to afford health insurance on their own, C) Non-citizens, D) Eligible for other programs currently in existence, E) Childless individuals between 18-35?

My proposal would be to cover them through a catastrophic insurance policy of some means or another - say, $3-5K deductible, for a start, then look at ways of implementing broader HSA plans, possibly making it more attractive for those whose employers can't afford a traditional group coverage plan.

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 2:34:29 PM

nm

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 2:40:09 PM

Quote :

" 1. Ensure that all Americans have health care coverage;"

out of pocket for everyone would make care more affordable for everyone. For everyone below the base line, the governement tacks it on to wellfare.

Quote :

"2. Make sure health care coverage is affordable and portable;"

Same as step1 + electronic health records

Quote :

"3. Implement strong private insurance market reforms;"

By switching to an insurance model where insurance is only for accidents, insurance companies would have almost no control over your regular care. You choose your docs, you choose your care, insurance companies are for when you get hit by a bus.

Quote :

"4. Modernize federal tax rules for health coverage;"

I'm in an HSA and i think its a good idea. The other way you could do it is make all healthcare costs tax deductable.

Quote :

"5. Promote improved disease prevention and wellness activities, as well as better management of chronic illnesses;"

In an accident insurnace model, you'd allow the companies to price people based on risk (to a point). Fat people pay more. Smokers pay more. This creates a monetary incentive to get healthy. People with diabetees pay more if they dont control their blood sugar. etc...

Quote :

"6. Make health care prices and choices more transparent so that consumers and providers can make the best choices for their health and health care dollars;"

This will never ever ever happen in a system where people aren't paying for their own care. If I'm paying for my own care I'm going to do my research and figure out with my doc what my options are. If the insurance company/fed is paying for it im gonna have to do what they're going to cover.

Quote :

"7. Improve the quality and value of health care services."

If I can pick and choose my doc I'm going to look at reviews and figure out whos the best choice for me. If the insurnace company/fed picks my doc then i'm going to go with what they think is best for me.

4/20/2009 2:43:52 PM

So I sure hope we can do something about those out of pocket expenses, you do realize how expensive it is right?


[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 3:04:04 PM

great post shaggy.

I agree with most everything but people dont understand just how damn expensive electronic health records are for a practice. We are putting them in piece by piece. We have been upgrading our exisiting computers and putting computers in the rooms. We also have scanned in ALL of our exisiting records into the files, which took over 6 months. The bitch of it is that you would like to have your EMR go with your patient/office management software(office). Usually, you love one EMR and another companies OMS. I know the EMR program we are looking at is over 40k for our office and doesnt work with our current OMS. So we would have to switch that too. We just dont have the money to do this all now being a smaller business. I dont believe there are any tax credits for doing this, other than the govt has said you have to have them by some date. (at least that is what my boss told me)

THe funny/sad thing is that politicians come out and think something is a good idea then force them on different sectors without ANY thought of costs of actually doing it. Clinton passed this HIPAA shit and the first draft that passed actually included making all ALL exam rooms sound proof. So every fucking office in the country was going to have to pay to SOUND PROOF thier rooms. Oh im sure that would have been cheap.

Hey pink, have you ever wondered why McDs doesnt charge 8 bucks for a hamburger? Govt mandate?

[Edited on April 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2009 3:28:10 PM

To be clear, the out of pocket expenses im talking about are being paid directly to the doc. They aren't going from you to an "insurance" company and then to the doc. So we're already cutting costs by just getting rid of the beuracracy. Its still not cheap, however the money that your company used to spend on your healthcare (~$12k a year for a family of 4) is now extra income for you. For people like me who have almost no yearly healthcare expenses, its pure income. As people get older they'll end up spending more on healthcare. Those of us with half a brain will take the extra income and put all/some of it into either and HSA or some other pre-tax account that will gain intreset. When we need to get healthcare, it comes out of the HSA.

Essentially just like with a 401k you'd be using your HSA to save for the costs of old age.

As for the EMR stuff, as long as theres a standard for the actual storage of records you should be able to choose whatever management software you want for OMS/EMR. Also, if theres a standard then there will be plenty of libraries for building your own software/integrating it with old software.

4/20/2009 3:54:40 PM

Quote :

"seriously, stop bringing this NHS stuff because ITS NOT WHAT ANYONE IS PROPOSING. we are not nationalizing hospitals, we are not making private insurance illegal. everyone would still have the CHOICE to have private or public. post all the stats about nationalized hospitals and systems where people can only have gov. provided insurance all you want but it's not the point at all."

With respect to choices in private vs. government insurance plans, I simply cannot fathom how the government is going to maintain competition when it enters the market offering plans that are subsidized and thus unfairly priced below the market. Sure, we will have the same number of choices when it is implemented, but over time private companies won't' be able to compete with the government's subsidized plans, which will eventually crowd out most private firms. This will ultimately leave us with the government as the primary provider for most Americans and a few private plans for the wealthy - just like our school system.

Quote :

"perhaps the best if you have the money. probably the worst (in the industrialized world) for the average american."

Not true.

Quote :

""It is widely assumed that health care, like most aspects of American life, shamefully shortchanges the poor. This is less true than it seems. Economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution recently discovered these astonishing data: On average, annual health spending per person -- from all private and government sources -- is equal for the poorest and the richest Americans. In 2003, it was $4,477 for the poorest fifth and $4,451 for the richest (see table). Probably in no other area, notes Burtless, is spending so equal -- not in housing, clothes, transportation or anything. Why? One reason: Government already insures more than a quarter of the population, including many poor. Medicare covers the elderly; Medicaid, many of the poor and their children; SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), more children. Another reason is the skewing of health spending toward the very sick; 10 percent of patients account for two-thirds of spending. Regardless of income, people get thrust onto a conveyor belt of costly care: long hospital stays, many tests, therapies and surgeries. ""

Quote :

"So I sure hope we can do something about those out of pocket expenses, you do realize how expensive it is right?"

Health care goods/services are expensive because they are predominantly paid by a third party. Further insulating consumers from additional services will only lead to greater demand than would occur if consumers paid out of a wholly-owned health-savings account. Currently, there is neither an incentive for suppliers nor consumers to be cognizant of prices. The consumer doesn't foot most of the bill and thus does not care if he/she receives $1000 in dubious tests. Nor does he/she care to ask the doctor if there are cheaper alternatives. Nor is the practitioner worried about the how demand will react to his/her raising prices in order to cover the state-of-the-art machines he/she just bought. Until the consumer incurs a sizable-enough portion of the bill to actually engage in cost-benefit analysis, we will continue to see ever-increasing demand and exponentially rising prices. There are simply only two other ways to combat this problem: match demand with supply (relax licensure laws) or ration existing resources. If the history of all other government-run systems is a guide, I bet on the latter.

4/20/2009 4:26:20 PM

Quote :

"This will never ever ever happen in a system where people aren't paying for their own care. If I'm paying for my own care I'm going to do my research and figure out with my doc what my options are. If the insurance company/fed is paying for it im gonna have to do what they're going to cover. "

Very very true. I had a visit to the ER last year, when I left, they handed me the bill of charges for my records. About 3 weeks later, I received my notice of benefits from the insurance company detailing what they were charged and what they paid for and what was mine to cover (the co-pay I already paid). The hospital billed my insurance company $400 more than they actually billed me. What incentive (short of my own sense of right and wrong) did I have to call my insurance company and inform them of this? On the other hand, if I paid out of pocket, what incentives would I have when my bill from the hospital shows up saying I owe them $400 more than they originally claimed?

The more people are involved directly in their healthcare costs, the less it will cost.

And don't believe any politician that claims to be for affordable healthcare unless they also demand that all medical expenses be deductible from your taxes.

4/20/2009 7:00:08 PM

so is there beef that records need to be computerized?

or is it in the cost of it?

because all books need to be computerized for search purposes

even though i prefer the touch and sight of paper to reading on-line

4/20/2009 8:45:27 PM