DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tj444
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Procedure costs being high will increase the amount an insurer pays out, making your premiums high. Not saying that as if you didn't already know it. But, what is it about procedure costs that they keep going up? Therein lies the issue, imo, not who is paying the bill.
Your health care & related corps keep wanting more money.. thats why your costs go up.. greed.. greed.. greed..
In Canada, the greed has been taken out of the picture.. unlike here in the US where Obama has allowed the insurance corps, Big Pharma, HMOs & all the other greedy clingers-on to continue to profit and flourish.. Not to mention that in the US if you do have insurance, you are a profit center to be milked for every unnecessary test, procedure, surgery etc that your insurance plan covers.. And your administration costs are too high also.. In Canada there are no HMOs and health care is seen differently there, the govt regulates the price paid for drugs, the provincial govts decide on what a reasonable payment is for the various services, that means the govt (taxpayers) dont get charged the outrageous amounts the US govt (US taxpayers) are gonna fork out.. The govt in Canada also limits awards in negligence lawsuits against doctors so Doctors dont have to pay outrageous liability insurance to greedy insurance corps..
So you see.. the major difference between the US system and Canadian system boils down to one thing- corporate greed is rampant in the US system.. You eliminate (or at least massively reduce) the greed and you can provide good health coverage for a whole lot more people..
just sayin' 
I have a basic understanding of how that stuff works in a "socialized" method. I get that. If we were to adopt the same prices as the highest "socialized" country, we'd save quite a bit of money, but we'd also cause utter chaos. The reality is that we spend absolutely ridiculous prices for procedures, relative to others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.htmlquote:
“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.
If we did that in America, we'd have the Insurance companies sitting across from affiliates of the insurance companies.
quote:
The result is that, unlike in other countries, sellers of health-care services in America have considerable power to set prices, and so they set them quite high. Two of the five most profitable industries in the United States — the pharmaceuticals industry and the medical device industry — sell health care. With margins of almost 20 percent, they beat out even the financial sector for sheer profitability.
The players sitting across the table from them — the health insurers — are not so profitable. In 2009, their profit margins were a mere 2.2 percent. That’s a signal that the sellers have the upper hand over the buyers.
2.2% isn't much of a margin by any stretch. But, the insurance giants make up for that through the providers they own.
In essence, insurance companies are charging a premium to their members that is based on the cost of the procedures. Since they own the providers - in many cases - they are simply skimming off 2.2% to pay themselves for services rendered. It behooves them to have sky high procedure costs.
So, my solution starts out with separating the insurers from the providers. We need them to oppose each other, not collude to raise prices. What do you think the reaction would be if President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius came out and set care prices across the board to realize a 50% reduction in what we pay for procedures currently? What would happen to that system?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.htmlquote:
There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people -- well below below the OECD average of 3.1.
And lower supply means? Yep. Higher prices. Why do we have such a low ratio? In part, we have one body that controls the supply of physicians, the AMA. That is done, in part, to maintain a low supply so physician incomes stay high.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Single Payer for Dummies - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread