+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61213141516171819 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 184

Thread: The U.S healthcare fiasco

  1. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
    Oh! I cannot wait for this one!!

    What "agenda" does WHO have in it's rankings???
    Obviously, you've never read the definitions WHO uses.

    The WHO's definition of a healthcare system not only includes doctors, clinics, and hospitals that deliver patient care, but also "all the organizations, institutions and resources that are devoted to producing health actions." Government oversight functions, public health activities, personal health dollars, and health-care financing schemes are all part of the system.

    So the rankings are skewed based on the level of government involvement and the US is penalized for having a freer system than the majority of foreign States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post
    And it depends on your definition of "rationing" as to what you mean
    I use standard the definition from peer-reviewed articles:


    Allocating resources when their supply is limited (EIU Healthcare International)

    The displacement of the interests of one group of patients by another (Spiers, J., The Realities of Rationing: ‘Priority Setting’ in the NHS, London)

    How many of a given intervention will be provided, to whom, at what cost, and under what circumstances (Rationing Health Care, Brit. Medical Bull. 51)

    Die kuenstliche Verknappung eines durchaus vorhandenen Angebots --- The artificial curtailment of supply when it is actually available (Cueni, T., Rationalisieren oder Rationieren?)

    In order not to trigger penalty payments, the KBV devised an Emergency Programme which would, in effect, ration drug prescribing for the rest of the year.

    The Emergency Programme proposed five steps:
    1. Waiting lists for prescription drugs and other prescription treatments (Heilmittel, which include physiotherapy, acupuncture etc.) except in life threatening or medically essential circumstances
    2. Postponement of innovative therapy to the following budget year
    3. Radical switching of prescriptions from brand to the cheapest generic
    4. Prior authorisation of expensive therapies
    5. In the event of budget being exceeded, ‘emergency prescriptions’ to be issued temporarily, for which patients would have to pay out-of pocket and personally claim reimbursement (in Germany, unlike France, patients pay only user charges out of pocket)

    Source: Why Ration Healthcare? Page 86
    The enemy numbered six hundred -- including women and children -- and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States. -- Mark Twain

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRFjr View Post
    No those are state laws and regulations that cause that but the federal government has the constructional right to change that under the commerce clause

    and don't say it can be done because car insurance deals with the same problem of each state having different insurance requirements and they manage to do so
    Car insurance is an entirely different market and you very well know it. It is simpler to sell Car insurance across state lines why? Car insurance companies don't need to deal with different networks of doctors and hospitals across state lines and neither are they exposed to the vast differences in demographics across states and how this impacts healthcare. Dealing with different demographics when it comes to healthcare is much more complicated than it is for car insurance.

    The truth here is that if insurance companies wanted to sell across state lines, THEY COULD, nothing is stopping them. Having to deal with different state regulations is not their biggest barrier. Also, states are free to have different regulations, isn't this in the constitution? Health insurance is a largely privatized free market but a complicated market that is expensive and i don't think that selling across state lines would be as efficient and cost effective as a single payer system. No matter what you do, the free markets will demand that a lot of money goes towards profits and executive pay which is not something a single payer system will be beholden to. In addition, administrative costs in this Country are very high compared to other developed nations with single payer systems. Too much of our premiums goes towards waste and not towards actual healthcare. Now i do think there is room to improvement by advancing technology, streamlining things and increasing competition but i don't see it being able to rival the cost effectiveness of a good run single payer system. There is a reason why the US has historically ranked extremely low in its healthcare system compared to so many other Countries, some of them even emerging Countries!

    Now incidentally, i bet you don't like the individual mandate huh? yet you compare health insurance to car insurance, you do know car liability insurance is a mandate right?

    [
    Last edited by Mike12; Jan 09 2017 at 07:16 PM.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike12 View Post
    Car insurance is an entirely different market and you very well know it. It is simpler to sell Car insurance across state lines why? Car insurance companies don't need to deal with different networks of doctors and hospitals across state lines and neither are they exposed to the vast differences in demographics across states and how this impacts healthcare. Dealing with different demographics when it comes to healthcare is much more complicated than it is for car insurance.

    The truth here is that if insurance companies wanted to sell across state lines, THEY COULD, nothing is stopping them. Having to deal with different state regulations is not their biggest barrier. Also, states are free to have different regulations, isn't this in the constitution? Health insurance is a largely privatized free market but a complicated market that is expensive and i don't think that selling across state lines would be as efficient and cost effective as a single payer system. No matter what you do, the free markets will demand that a lot of money goes towards profits and executive pay which is not something a single payer system will be beholden to. In addition, administrative costs in this Country are very high compared to other developed nations with single payer systems. Too much of our premiums goes towards waste and not towards actual healthcare. Now i do think there is room to improvement by advancing technology, streamlining things and increasing competition but i don't see it being able to rival the cost effectiveness of a good run single payer system. There is a reason why the US has historically ranked extremely low in its healthcare system compared to so many other Countries, some of them even emerging Countries!

    Now incidentally, i bet you don't like the individual mandate huh? yet you compare health insurance to car insurance, you do know car liability insurance is a mandate right?

    [
    what a nonsensical basket of bull crap
    what the hell does demographics have a dam thing to do with health care? a African American with high blood pressure is the same a Hispanic with high blood pressure. Caucasian having heart attack is the same as an Asian having a heart attack health care is health care treatment doesn't change because of ones demographics

    and car insurance companies have the same type of so called networks they have networks of repair and body shops which changes from state to state town to town
    Elections have Consequences, Trump Won -- Now You Liberals Go Sit in the Back of the Bus

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRFjr View Post
    what a nonsensical basket of bull crap
    what the hell does demographics have a dam thing to do with health care? a African American with high blood pressure is the same a Hispanic with high blood pressure. Caucasian having heart attack is the same as an Asian having a heart attack health care is health care treatment doesn't change because of ones demographics

    and car insurance companies have the same type of so called networks they have networks of repair and body shops which changes from state to state town to town
    wow... so a health insurance company selling in a state with predominantly sicker or older people doesn't have to do anything different than selling insurance in astute with predominantly younger and healthier people?

    i'm arguing with a person that knows little, a waste of time.

  5. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike12 View Post
    private insurance doesn't work when it comes to reducing costs, it's a lie that more competition and free markets will bring down costs. See, one of the reasons premiums continue to go up even after ACA, is that it's largely left to private insurance companies and medical providers to set the price. The free markets will set a high price for healthcare for very obvious reasons:

    1. healthcare is expensive
    2. Insurance companies make astronomical profits, our premiums are not just to pay for healthcare, it's also goes towards profits and fat cat's wallets who run insurance companies
    3. There is an incredible amount of inefficiency with hospital administrative costs, the amount of waste here is much higher than in nationalized or single payer systems. Administrative costs for hospitals in US amount of a much larger % of their budget when compared to systems like what they have in Canada for instance. This is largely due to the private insurance industry...


    so i have yet to hear a good solution to how FREE markets will set a low price when part of the premiums go towards billions in profits, there is so much administrative waste in hospitals and healthcare is expensive to begin with. It simply will never work! The free markets will NEVER set a good price for healthcare.

    This is so basic. The free markets see sick people as unprofitable and so how do they seek to tackle this? charge high premiums, set high deductibles, drop them off plans, set lifetime limits. There is no way around it, simple no? Now ACA attempted to improve this by eliminating discriminatory practices against the most in need, the idea was - force everyone to pay for insurance, limit insurance companies power to discriminate against the most in need and it'll all work. The problem here is that the private sector 'free markets' will always seek to make a profit so they found ways to do it by increasing premiums for healthy people and increasing deductibles. Well, there you go - FREE MARKETS.

    The only way to solve this is to take the free markets out of the insurance business, medicare of all or single payer would bring down hospital administrative costs tremendously and once profits are eliminated, premiums will come down. This is a no brainer... Of course, if you have the money, you can always get what you want anyway.
    So much nonsense it hurts... Look, insurance should not have any effect on the costs of services that they are insuring! Do you blame Geico for the cost of repairing your car? Do you blame State Farm for charging more for flood insurance along the Gulf Coast? The cost of the insurance MIRRORS the cost of service and the probability of the purchaser needing to use the service.

    As far as your misguided free market rant - you need to wake up. The fact that our current medical system is decidedly NOT free market is one of the biggest problems. As soon as you can google a Dr and get a price list for services you can come back and rail against the free market. As it stands, it's the most fair way to distribute scarce resources.

  6. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike12 View Post
    this sounds good but i don't think it will work.... too much goes towards profits, administrative costs. I read a stat that at least 30% of healthcare costs today goes towards profits, paperwork, overhead, CEO and executive comp.
    If the industry were really operating in a free market this could not be true. There would be billions of dollars of incentive for a company to cut out the glut and provide the same insurance but at a fraction of the operational cost.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKS View Post
    If the industry were really operating in a free market this could not be true. There would be billions of dollars of incentive for a company to cut out the glut and provide the same insurance but at a fraction of the operational cost.
    nothing is stopping health insurance companies from selling across state lines, name me one federal law that impedes it. It is a free market, KNOW YOUR STUFF. If you tell me 'states have different regulations' this is still not a good reason because states regulate across many areas and impact many industries, this doesn't get in the way.

    So tell me, what is stopping health insurance companies from selling across state lines? name me the federal or state laws...
    Last edited by Mike12; Jan 10 2017 at 11:23 AM.

  8. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike12 View Post
    nothing is stopping health insurance companies from selling across state lines, name me one federal law that impedes it. It is a free market, KNOW YOUR STUFF. If you tell me 'states have different regulations' this is still not a good reason because states regulate across many areas and impact many industries, this doesn't get in the way.

    So tell me, what is stopping health insurance companies from selling across state lines? name me the federal or state laws...
    Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate? I'm sorry but the litmus test for a free market is not whether goods and services can be sold across state lines.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKS View Post
    Are you suggesting that coconuts migrate? I'm sorry but the litmus test for a free market is not whether goods and services can be sold across state lines.
    tell me what is stopping health insurance companies from selling across state lines? looks to me you don't even know, well read up on the subject and once you are better informed, let's talk.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike12 View Post
    Car insurance is an entirely different market and you very well know it. It is simpler to sell Car insurance across state lines why? Car insurance companies don't need to deal with different networks of doctors and hospitals across state lines and neither are they exposed to the vast differences in demographics across states and how this impacts healthcare. Dealing with different demographics when it comes to healthcare is much more complicated than it is for car insurance.

    The truth here is that if insurance companies wanted to sell across state lines, THEY COULD, nothing is stopping them. Having to deal with different state regulations is not their biggest barrier. Also, states are free to have different regulations, isn't this in the constitution? Health insurance is a largely privatized free market but a complicated market that is expensive and i don't think that selling across state lines would be as efficient and cost effective as a single payer system. No matter what you do, the free markets will demand that a lot of money goes towards profits and executive pay which is not something a single payer system will be beholden to. In addition, administrative costs in this Country are very high compared to other developed nations with single payer systems. Too much of our premiums goes towards waste and not towards actual healthcare. Now i do think there is room to improvement by advancing technology, streamlining things and increasing competition but i don't see it being able to rival the cost effectiveness of a good run single payer system. There is a reason why the US has historically ranked extremely low in its healthcare system compared to so many other Countries, some of them even emerging Countries!

    Now incidentally, i bet you don't like the individual mandate huh? yet you compare health insurance to car insurance, you do know car liability insurance is a mandate right?

    [
    Auto insurance just like health insurance, your average premiums are based on your zip code.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61213141516171819 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. question about the VA and healthcare
    By tsuke in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 29 2016, 06:47 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Oct 16 2014, 05:06 PM
  3. Fox News: Hammering the Security of Healthcare.com
    By FAHayekowski in forum Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Jan 20 2014, 10:35 AM
  4. Hiding the Hacking at HealthCare.gov
    By Professor Peabody in forum Current Events
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: Dec 26 2013, 02:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks