Why is Healthcare such a big deal anyway?


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
dito is offline dito Post #41  November 6,2009, 7:06am
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
With Connecticut having one of the largest concentration of insurance companies in the country, the competition has very little effect. You can go out & shop around but will find little difference with each charging more yearly for less service.

I think that you overestimate the willingness for any company to reduce its pricing. Even with growing profits it is very rare for a company to not accept the extra profit. They often do not pass savings onto their clients.

You say that government involvement is corporatism but that would not equate to a change at all then. Health care is that now & would be that after any bill is passed.

I can also tell you that a doctor wanting more patients is NOT a good thing in health care. It is very bad as I have seen offices that will never turn down new patients.

They cannot handle the volume that they currently have & the only thing that more volume accomplishes is less care.

I have seen them take on an obscene amount of newcomers while being unwilling to spend the money to hire more people to handle such volume. They don't mind if their is no personal involvement with the patient or if the see you for 5 minutes & never return your phone calls.
They are separate businesses, aye?

But if they can make more profits by volume why not lower prices?

Exactly and it will get worse. What do you think a mandate to buy insurance will do? That's right, more money to insurance companies and they wont be forced to lower their rates.

Bad doctors go under and good ones prosper.



 
  Reply With Quote
Rand_011 is offline Rand_011 Post #42  November 6,2009, 8:43am
Rand_011's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2008

Anaheim

Posts: 998

See profile

imbricated wrote :
Hi Rand,

It was my understanding that the State only allowed two companies to provide independent insurance back when I dropped mine: Blue Cross and Oxford. Mysteriously, their premiums were within $5 of each other. There are about half a dozen now and there are hundreds of dollars difference in premiums. Of course, none are remotely affordable, though the premiums have dropped a bit over the past six months (along with what they buy, no doubt). These are all recent developments... I wonder what inspired them... hmmm....

Off the top of my head, I know there is Aetna, Oxford, GHI, HIP, Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield ... And they've been there at least 9 years ... The benefits for just about all of them, other than HIP, would be considered very good benefits even if offered by an employer ... Why are they nearly the same price, you might ask ... You'd have to talk to the New York state insurance department ... They are the ones who approve ALL rates.

And NY insurers most definitely do block coverage for many individuals. I have two immediate friends who can't get health insurance.

Correct ... If they went without insurance for a while they'd get stuck with a waiting periods and/or exclusions ... Which makes perfect sense ... You can't get fire insurance to start yesterday to cover the house that just burned to the ground ...

Still, following your logic; are you saying that the problem with New York's insurance regulations is that too many New Yorkers are getting coverage? No ... I thought it would be rather obvious ... The regulations cause sky-rocketing premiums ... Remove the regulations ... More insurers will flock to the state and prices will drop considerably.

That if the insurance industry here were allowed to discriminate based on a broad range of criteria, choosing only the most profitable customers, that my premiums would be more affordable? Did you miss where I defined discriminate? Discriminate with regards to premium = rates dependent upon age/gender/health status/location ...

That this would bring New York back down to a 1 or a 2 like the rest of the country where presumably the insurance industry already has carte blanch when it comes to vetting its customers? 1 or 2 insurers in a state???? The only state like that is Hawaii ... Montana is the next closest, but I can still think of at least three individual insurance carriers in the state ... Massachusettes might be the next closest, though I have no idea how their system actually works ... All I know is I get tons of calls from residents trying to get insurance off the state plan.

What's supposed to happen to everybody else? How old are you Rand? How old am I? Ahh ... The classic 'You are too young and naive to understand things' argument ... Let's try another approach ... How long have you studied the insurance industry?? My guess is that I am far more aware of nuances within the industry and have a lot more experience ... Granted, I may have only been here 9 years, parents here 35 years ... I may have only worked with more individuals on a yearly basis than most agents work with in their lifetime ... But I am the young and stu.pid kid ... Hahhahaha ... I love it!

Are you old enough to realize that all kinds of things are going to be going wrong with you real soon? Nah ... Not old enough at all ... Still working on getting rid of my baby teeth ...

Why don't we all have the right to decent health care in this country, that doesn't cost more than our homes?! For most, it doesn't cost more than their homes ...

Why can the other developed nations afford to care for their citizens but we, supposedly the wealthiest country of all cannot? Because they get taxed up the wazoo for it ...
I am curious though ... Nothing in my previous post was negative towards you in any way shape or form ... Yet, my intelligence/awareness/age are being attacked by you ...
 
  Reply With Quote
nightling is offline nightling Post #43  November 6,2009, 9:31am
nightling's Avatar

all I'll leave are smoke rings in the dark.

Power Poster

Joined: Sep 2009

Misery

Posts: 6,901

See profile

The rhetoric itself is largely meaningless. It's all about where the money goes.

You could fix health care access by 1) letting national associations provide insurance without regard to state borders (which large corporations are already allowed to do freely) and 2) contracting with existing doctors to set up sliding fee clinics where those without insurance pay based on their ability to pay. People on Medicaid could then work part-time jobs without completely losing health care benefits — they'd just pay a larger share of their costs.

My two cents fwiw. Which is not much.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #44  November 6,2009, 6:36pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

dito wrote :
They are separate businesses, aye?

But if they can make more profits by volume why not lower prices?

Exactly and it will get worse. What do you think a mandate to buy insurance will do? That's right, more money to insurance companies and they wont be forced to lower their rates.

Bad doctors go under and good ones prosper.


One thing about the Dr.'s argument does not make sense to me.

OK...he states that Medicare/Medicaid sets its prices & excludes competition... which he claims results in higher costs to consumers... yet Drs. complain constantly that they are not paid enough for procedures from the patients that have those benefits.

On a side note... I would love to see Napolitano disect corporate law for Constitutionality for once. He is a huge fan of any law that favors big business. Quite one sided & biased.

I say that we get government out of health care... I think that I will even forego all Doctors & get my diagnoses from the internet or others that have the same ailments. I will go directly to the pharmacy for my meds. If the gov't is going to force me to go to a Dr. to get medicine then they must be controlled. Much like utilities, healthcare is in constant demand. It doesn't act in the same manner as other free market products.

I do wonder how little a Dr. will charge for a procedure. How much money will he settle for per year in order to stay competitive? There is a difference because one Dr CANNOT produce an unlimited amount of product. There is a very finite number of patients that they can treat safely per day. It is not like Doritos where they will just keep making more. He cannot offer things cheaper unless he decides to earn less. What will that do to the supply of Drs.?? Will someone that spent a couple hundred thousand on education cut their salary in half? OR is it more likely that they will act as a sort of union with rules to protect the industry?? I would bet you that they would have industry minimums in no time at all even if gov't was completely out of the picture.

Even my industry does this. Those with a license must behave a certain way. The industry also ensures that certain things can only be purchased through someone with a license. Some manufacturers are not allowed to sell their product directly to the consumer. It happens all the time & already does in the healthcare industry.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #45  November 6,2009, 11:54pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
OK...he states that Medicare/Medicaid sets its prices & excludes competition... which he claims results in higher costs to consumers... yet Drs. complain constantly that they are not paid enough for procedures from the patients that have those benefits.
Oh I got this one. Medicare and Medicaid only cover around 95% of the cost of any procedure. The remaining 5% is shifted to private insurance in the form of higher rates. An example; say a procedure cost 100 dollars, Medicare only pays the doctor 95 dollars, if another patent under private insurance has the same procedure the doctor bills the insurance company 105 dollars. Say you have two Medicare and one private, then the private insurance is billed 110 for the procedure.

It is a mess but we actually pay more in private insurance to support the government programs than we do to support the uninsured. Something our government doesn't like us looking at.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #46  November 7,2009, 11:35am
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
One thing about the Dr.'s argument does not make sense to me.

OK...he states that Medicare/Medicaid sets its prices & excludes competition... which he claims results in higher costs to consumers... yet Drs. complain constantly that they are not paid enough for procedures from the patients that have those benefits.

On a side note... I would love to see Napolitano disect corporate law for Constitutionality for once. He is a huge fan of any law that favors big business. Quite one sided & biased.

I say that we get government out of health care... I think that I will even forego all Doctors & get my diagnoses from the internet or others that have the same ailments. I will go directly to the pharmacy for my meds. If the gov't is going to force me to go to a Dr. to get medicine then they must be controlled. Much like utilities, healthcare is in constant demand. It doesn't act in the same manner as other free market products.

I do wonder how little a Dr. will charge for a procedure. How much money will he settle for per year in order to stay competitive? There is a difference because one Dr CANNOT produce an unlimited amount of product. There is a very finite number of patients that they can treat safely per day. It is not like Doritos where they will just keep making more. He cannot offer things cheaper unless he decides to earn less. What will that do to the supply of Drs.?? Will someone that spent a couple hundred thousand on education cut their salary in half? OR is it more likely that they will act as a sort of union with rules to protect the industry?? I would bet you that they would have industry minimums in no time at all even if gov't was completely out of the picture.

Even my industry does this. Those with a license must behave a certain way. The industry also ensures that certain things can only be purchased through someone with a license. Some manufacturers are not allowed to sell their product directly to the consumer. It happens all the time & already does in the healthcare industry.
Maybe he's talking about the things that they buy. I think Haz posted a thread on that recently. Lots of waste.

Napolitano has discussed that before. He is very against corporatism.

Sounds like you can't make decisions for yourself and need someone to make them for you.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #47  November 7,2009, 8:46pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

dito wrote :
Maybe he's talking about the things that they buy. I think Haz posted a thread on that recently. Lots of waste.

Napolitano has discussed that before. He is very against corporatism.

Sounds like you can't make decisions for yourself and need someone to make them for you.
I know exactly what I like & want. Never an issue.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #48  November 7,2009, 8:51pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

Half way home.
 
  Reply With Quote
dito is offline dito Post #49  November 8,2009, 7:26am
dito's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Dec 2008

Colorado

Posts: 1,308

See profile

They likened the passing of this to medicare and social security two failed and bankrupt programs. Now there is another government program for people to be dependent on(assuming it passes the senate).

In a way I hope it does pass along with the cap and tax bill. The sooner we can get to the collapse and rebuild the better. But things can always get worse too.
 
  Reply With Quote
independentthinker is offline independentthinker Post #50  November 8,2009, 2:13pm
independentth…'s Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 28

See profile

dito wrote :
They likened the passing of this to medicare and social security two failed and bankrupt programs. Now there is another government program for people to be dependent on(assuming it passes the senate).

In a way I hope it does pass along with the cap and tax bill. The sooner we can get to the collapse and rebuild the better. But things can always get worse too.
I won't make assumptions about how knowledgeable you are about some things, so I will state the following for anyone who might not know:

Social security and medicare had their genesis in the fact that under our great capitalist system, masses of people, most who had worked their whole lives and never had spendthrift ways, were unable to put aside enough money to survive with minimum comfort when their bodies were too aged and ill to work anymore. Further, in addition to struggling not to starve or live on the streets, they lacked the means to access medical care at the time the majority needed it the most. Previous generations found it shameful to see the elderly salt of the earth who had done their share to be productive citizens when they could living and dying in destitution. A system was put in place to help shield people against such an end. It isn't charity, as we all contribute from our pay over the course of our working lives.

These programs may have their flaws -- and I don't know a single institution, public or private that doesn't- but many decades later they still serve that purpose. Some are "dependent"; for some the money is gravy on top of what they already have, but those tend to be the few very high earners. I find complaints of people being dependent on medicare especially stunning, at a time when there isn't a person with ears alive in this country who doesn't know that insurance companies don't voluntarily touch anyone with a meaningful medical issue (and many people with only minor issues) or at high risk for one, which is just about 99% of people eligble for medicare. Also, medicare isn't free. To some at least. People pay "premiums" and a myriad of fees just like they do with private insurance policies. The life one can afford subsisting only on these programs isn't pretty.

What would you rather see instead? Old people starving in tents on the streets? We already have plenty of that. I am frankly worried about what the future portends as it is, as the waves of people whose pensions were gutted by modern day robber barons at the head of corporations enter retirement and struggle to make it on the crumbs left for them through the PBGC. Not to mention those coming age in the 401K only era, for whom any kind of pension is an utter fantasy. The fairly young should beware as well, as it is now impossible for most people who pursue college or advanced degrees not to graduate with 30 years of debt from that as well.

How can people save adequately for their sunset years when under our existing system a lifetime of gain and ownership of a home can be wiped out by a single major medical episode?

How soon some forget (if they ever knew).
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Question: Why is socialism bad? The1Tomcat Politics 401 October 4,2010 3:08pm
Dating Deal Breakers! fireheart35 A Man's Point of view 42 April 22,2010 5:51pm
Deal breakers or no? Shepherd3597 Relationships 9 September 23,2009 5:13pm
Vote On Healthcare DennisWisconsin Intelligent Conversation 2 August 24,2009 6:18am
Vote For Your Choice On Healthcare DennisWisconsin Chit Chat 0 August 19,2009 10:47pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“The tennis ball story is a good analogy, RD, and that's how I interpret "gut feeling" -- a conclusion/sense of something that's a thought, not a feeling; though it will have feelings associated with ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion

“Agree. Given where you are emotionally, I would cease all communication with Mr. Trade Show. You're vulnerable. He's up for a challenge. It's playing with fire. You'll be in a bad place in the ... ” –  emma_hazards

Join the “Received lovely email from former poofer” discussion

“How about phone calls, then?” –  barbarella_42

Join the “Advice on Response time” discussion

“I have never spoken to a woman like he has. Yeah, I have never spoken to a woman like that either. It is a hard call to whether he is just as jerk, or whether he is a player. Both are feasible ... ” –  ScottK

Join the “So, men. Explain this to me, please!” discussion

“I have come to this same conclusion. Thank you.” –  bibittyboo

Join the “Confused about date #2” discussion

“Harmonygirl, I do not usually make up my mind on blanket situations but instead would examine each one on it's own merits, so I cannot answer your question. However, just in the going about of daily ... ” –  Ephemera

Join the “Atheism, Religion and Tolerance” discussion

“I was ok until the kiss on the cheek part....That doesn't sound like your defenses were up at all... It's one thing for a guy to walk up and start with the cheesy lines....But as soon as I say, "no ... ” –  Ingytravel

Join the “So this guy walks into a bar . . .” discussion

“ No. It is not wise. You have to throw all your eggs into one basket for love to work at all. Relationships are inherently riskier than careers. You can't use the same rules. You might lose ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Becoming Exclusive” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:24am.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0