RE: health insurance not tied to employment

RE: health insurance not tied to employment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 2:52:28 PM)
quote: No, we haven't. LL started on about "the poor" In response to your comments about "the rich" quote: Why can't the middle class afford insurance? Because it costs too much. They can when its part of a group, as in employer provided. On their own, no way. quote: Why does insurance cost too much? Because health care costs are high. Stock holders CEO bonuses Executive bonuses Lobbyists What do those 4 things have to do with health care? Highmark CEO compensation tops $6M In compensation figures filed with the state Department of Insurance this month, the state's largest insurance company said it paid former CEO Kenneth Melani $3.3 million in 2012, even though he was fired April 1. He was the highest-paid company employee for the year. While I am sure its part of his benefit package, not all corporate income, provided by the premiums of their beneficiaries, went to the management of heath care. Current Highmark CEO William Winkenwerder Jr., who was hired over the spring and began work July 16, took home $1.87 million in total compensation -- $562,712 for his half-year of salary, plus a $1.18 million bonus and $131,000 in "other" compensation. Dr. Melani made $290,000 in salary through the first three months of 2012, plus $3.3 million in 2012 bonuses and $315,000 in other compensation. quote: So, X (care costs) cause a rise in Y (insurance costs). The answer to that, then, is to subsidize Y? That's just a bandaid solution, which is and has been my biggest complaint of the Democrat's attempts to "help." X = care costs. Reduce X by getting people seen before that cost skyrockets. As in, get a tooth pulled before it affects a heart valve. Get that sugar dropped before kidney failure sets in. Get that BP down before it ends up with a stroke. You will be amazed at how much cheaper a doctors visit and medications are in comparison to curative treatment. We have been over that before. You simply choose to ignore that aspect. quote: Then, you point towards the reduction in reimbursement rate growth as a way that care costs will be managed. Even though you don't debate that the lack of Medicaid physicians accepting new patients is tied to the relatively low reimbursement rates. How is it you have an apple in each hand and can't see that you have two apples? I see two very ripe apples. I see cost containment not only for physicians but also for hospitals. I see a reduction in hospital stays as improved health care is provided. Medicaid is an issue only for certain states. In PA, I had the best physicians, the best surgeons, the best eye doctors.... I didnt lack except in dental care. In the Carolinas, its a joke. A national standard is needed, required, and hasnt been updated for many, many years. The exchanges should help in that regard. [;)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 3:35:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: No, we haven't. LL started on about "the poor" In response to your comments about "the rich" quote: Why can't the middle class afford insurance? Because it costs too much. They can when its part of a group, as in employer provided. On their own, no way. quote: Why does insurance cost too much? Because health care costs are high. Stock holders CEO bonuses Executive bonuses Lobbyists What do those 4 things have to do with health care? They all need to be disconnected from it. quote: Highmark CEO compensation tops $6M In compensation figures filed with the state Department of Insurance this month, the state's largest insurance company said it paid former CEO Kenneth Melani $3.3 million in 2012, even though he was fired April 1. He was the highest-paid company employee for the year. While I am sure its part of his benefit package, not all corporate income, provided by the premiums of their beneficiaries, went to the management of heath care. Current Highmark CEO William Winkenwerder Jr., who was hired over the spring and began work July 16, took home $1.87 million in total compensation -- $562,712 for his half-year of salary, plus a $1.18 million bonus and $131,000 in "other" compensation. Dr. Melani made $290,000 in salary through the first three months of 2012, plus $3.3 million in 2012 bonuses and $315,000 in other compensation. And, where have I ever stated that CEO salaries aren't too high? JeffBC and I got into a back and forth over something we actually agreed on regarding CEO salaries. quote: quote: So, X (care costs) cause a rise in Y (insurance costs). The answer to that, then, is to subsidize Y? That's just a bandaid solution, which is and has been my biggest complaint of the Democrat's attempts to "help." X = care costs. No, tazzy, you aren't getting what I'm saying. It's the same do-see-do we do every fucking time this comes up. When you are talking about "care costs," you are talking about aggregate care costs; the total cost of all the care that is given. And, as I explain every fucking time, that isn't what I'm talking about. When I wrote "care cost," I was speaking about the cost of a procedure. You know, the care? As a ridiculous hypothetical example so just maybe you'll catch on this time, if we cut the cost of every medical procedure in half, we'd have half the aggregate care cost given the same quantities of each procedure. Thus, you reduce the cost of procedures, you'll reduce the pay outs for insurance, and your premiums will drop. Ta da! Mathemagics to the rescue! quote: Reduce X by getting people seen before that cost skyrockets. As in, get a tooth pulled before it affects a heart valve. Get that sugar dropped before kidney failure sets in. Get that BP down before it ends up with a stroke. You will be amazed at how much cheaper a doctors visit and medications are in comparison to curative treatment. We have been over that before. You simply choose to ignore that aspect. No, tazzy, I don't. Why don't people go to the doctor for preventive maintenance now? Uh, it costs too much, right? If the high cost of a doctor visit is the reason people aren't going in for preventive care visits, what do you think would happen if the cost of a doctor visit was reduced? quote: quote: Then, you point towards the reduction in reimbursement rate growth as a way that care costs will be managed. Even though you don't debate that the lack of Medicaid physicians accepting new patients is tied to the relatively low reimbursement rates. How is it you have an apple in each hand and can't see that you have two apples? I see two very ripe apples. I see cost containment not only for physicians but also for hospitals. I see a reduction in hospital stays as improved health care is provided. Medicaid is an issue only for certain states. In PA, I had the best physicians, the best surgeons, the best eye doctors.... I didnt lack except in dental care. In the Carolinas, its a joke. A national standard is needed, required, and hasnt been updated for many, many years. The exchanges should help in that regard. [;)] Sadly, what you don't see (or won't acknowledge) is that I see the same reduction in aggregate care cost via reduced costs incurred by doctors, hospitals and other care providers, and a reduction in the amount of curative care necessary (and at a lower cost, to boot).

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 3:52:38 PM)
quote: They all need to be disconnected from it. But they arent, and people have waited long enough to wait for more legislation to ensure that happens. quote: And, where have I ever stated that CEO salaries aren't too high? JeffBC and I got into a back and forth over something we actually agreed on regarding CEO salaries. Its not salaries, its bonuses. Salaries are relatively small. quote: I was speaking about the cost of a procedure. And? Reduce the number of expensive procedures and you have lowered overall cost of health care. quote: As a ridiculous hypothetical example so just maybe you'll catch on this time, if we cut the cost of every medical procedure in half, we'd have half the aggregate care cost given the same quantities of each procedure. How about we cut the need for some of the more expensive procedures by reducing the delay of initial treatment? $3000 a week to run on a dialysis machine. Procedure. Prevent the need. Can you in all cases? Nope. What are the causes of kidney disease? Diabetes - thought to cause about half of all cases Hypertension (high blood pressure) - thought to cause about one quarter of all cases Inflammation of the kidney (glomerulonephritis) Malaria Long-term exposure to lead, solvents and fuels Systemic lupus erythematosus - body's own immune system attacks the kidneys Polycystic kidney disease - inherited Physical injury, such as a heavy blow to the kidney Kidney infection (pyelonephritis) Cardiac and vascular surgery - (researchers from Western University, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, found that the number of patients requiring acute dialysis after vascular and cardiac surgery has risen threefold since 1995.) Jaundice Over consumption of some medications Unborn baby does not have normally developing kidneys Yellow fever http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/152902.php Now, we havent spoken about the nephrologists fees, or the lab work, or the medications.... its between 850 and 1k to run a treatment... and they are typically 3 times a week. We arent discussing any complications that arise from being on dialysis itself. Nor the access required to run on dialysis. Simply the cost of that procedure (per your requirements) is around 50 k a year... every year... for everyone who runs on dialysis... because kidney failure is rubber stamped approved for disability. That list shows some that will never be possible to avoid... and others that can be fixed with medications. The unit I worked had 25 chairs, always full, with three shifts a day, 6 days a week. This didnt include the staff for emergency runs in the hospital as well. 25 x 3 x 6 x 1K - 450k... a week. $23,400,000 a year... just for one unit.

angelikaJ -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 8:02:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why can't the middle class afford insurance? Because it costs too much. Why does insurance cost too much? Because health care costs are high. A family member recently went to a local podiatrist. He ordered x-rays, not because she needed x-rays but because he really wanted to do an MRI and the insurance company wouldn't approve it without x-rays first. On the surface it sounds reasonable: x-rays are less expensive than an MRI, but x-rays tend to be limited and he knew he would not get the information he needed from an x-ray. So, that was an unnecessary expense. My brother was seen by his physician for pain in mid-January. It is nearly May and they are still undecided what to do about it. A couple of doctors think the mass may be cancerous, but the surgeon he was sent to didn't want to do a biopsy without more tests; he has been scoped and scanned numerous times, but his physicians are affiliated with a relatively shiny, new hospital. Someone has to pay for all the new and shiny. They are laying off nurses in some of the local hospitals, to keep expenses down. As far as healthcare costs go, very little of it is making much sense: The $400 Tylenol Pill, And How To Get A Better Price related link: http://medicalrecoveryservicesinc.net/tag/pat-palmer/

dcnovice -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 8:04:48 PM)
quote: A couple of doctors think the mass may be cancerous, but the surgeon he was sent to didn't want to do a biopsy without more tests; he has been scoped and scanned numerous times, but his physicians are affiliated with a relatively shiny, new hospital. Someone has to pay for all the new and shiny. Oh dear God. Time for another surgeon perhaps?

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 8:35:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why can't the middle class afford insurance? Because it costs too much. Why does insurance cost too much? Because health care costs are high. A family member recently went to a local podiatrist. He ordered x-rays, not because she needed x-rays but because he really wanted to do an MRI and the insurance company wouldn't approve it without x-rays first. On the surface it sounds reasonable: x-rays are less expensive than an MRI, but x-rays tend to be limited and he knew he would not get the information he needed from an x-ray. So, that was an unnecessary expense. My brother was seen by his physician for pain in mid-January. It is nearly May and they are still undecided what to do about it. A couple of doctors think the mass may be cancerous, but the surgeon he was sent to didn't want to do a biopsy without more tests; he has been scoped and scanned numerous times, but his physicians are affiliated with a relatively shiny, new hospital. Someone has to pay for all the new and shiny. They are laying off nurses in some of the local hospitals, to keep expenses down. As far as healthcare costs go, very little of it is making much sense: The $400 Tylenol Pill, And How To Get A Better Price related link: http://medicalrecoveryservicesinc.net/tag/pat-palmer/ You are talking about providing too many services, which I won't argue isn't a part of the problem. Now, imagine if that MRI was half the cost of what they are now, and we cut through the overprescription of diagnostics?

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 8:47:09 PM)
quote: You are talking about providing too many services, which I won't argue isn't a part of the problem. Now, imagine if that MRI was half the cost of what they are now, and we cut through the overprescription of diagnostics? More government mandating prices? Banning insurance companies from health care? I have yet to see how you are going to miraculously cut costs in half.... Last time you went for an MRI? Mine was a grand. I still could not afford 500.

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 8:47:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: They all need to be disconnected from it. But they arent, and people have waited long enough to wait for more legislation to ensure that happens. People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? quote: quote: And, where have I ever stated that CEO salaries aren't too high? JeffBC and I got into a back and forth over something we actually agreed on regarding CEO salaries. Its not salaries, its bonuses. Salaries are relatively small. Holy shit. Fine. Pay packages. Better? You are disagreeing on a very semantics now. We agree they get paid to fucking much. quote: quote: I was speaking about the cost of a procedure. And? Reduce the number of expensive procedures and you have lowered overall cost of health care. quote: As a ridiculous hypothetical example so just maybe you'll catch on this time, if we cut the cost of every medical procedure in half, we'd have half the aggregate care cost given the same quantities of each procedure. How about we cut the need for some of the more expensive procedures by reducing the delay of initial treatment? Boy, you really need to start reading more before you respond. Me: quote: Why don't people go to the doctor for preventive maintenance now? Uh, it costs too much, right? If the high cost of a doctor visit is the reason people aren't going in for preventive care visits, what do you think would happen if the cost of a doctor visit was reduced? ... Sadly, what you don't see (or won't acknowledge) is that I see the same reduction in aggregate care cost via reduced costs incurred by doctors, hospitals and other care providers, and a reduction in the amount of curative care necessary (and at a lower cost, to boot). I fully believe that lowering the costs of each item of care (ie. procedure, service, visit, etc.) will result in better health outcomes because more preventive care will take place. We don't disagree that preventive care is cheaper than curative care. We never have. Never. Instead of addressing the actual cost of care (that is, the costs of a medical procedure, a doctor visit, etc.), Obamacare simply subsidizes the cost of insurance for those who don't make as much at a cost to those who make more. That is to say, it's all about who is paying for insurance. Health care is expensive so there is insurance to help spread out the cost. That isn't lowering the cost of health care, it's just spreading it out. When health care gets so expensive that insurance gets to the point where people can't afford the insurance, then there is an even larger problem. But it all still stems from the fact that health care is expensive.

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 8:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: You are talking about providing too many services, which I won't argue isn't a part of the problem. Now, imagine if that MRI was half the cost of what they are now, and we cut through the overprescription of diagnostics? More government mandating prices? Banning insurance companies from health care? I have yet to see how you are going to miraculously cut costs in half.... Last time you went for an MRI? Mine was a grand. I still could not afford 500. Haven't had one. The only time I was a candidate for it, the orthopedic surgeon recommended against it because it wasn't really necessary for the surgery I was getting. That was back in '03 or '04.

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 8:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: You are talking about providing too many services, which I won't argue isn't a part of the problem. Now, imagine if that MRI was half the cost of what they are now, and we cut through the overprescription of diagnostics? More government mandating prices? Banning insurance companies from health care? I have yet to see how you are going to miraculously cut costs in half.... Last time you went for an MRI? Mine was a grand. I still could not afford 500. Did you pay the $1000, or did your insurance? If it was you, wouldn't $500 been closer to being affordable? If it was your insurance company, what would your premiums look like if the reimbursement amounts they were paying out were cut in half?

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/28/2013 9:03:08 PM)
quote: People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? Wait.... lol.... Its sorta hard to stop laughing at this point. ROFL Yeah, back when Clinton was in office, or did you forget? Or, do you mean cutting costs in half... that still leaves many unable to afford medical caIre? quote: Instead of addressing the actual cost of care (that is, the costs of a medical procedure, a doctor visit, etc.), Obamacare simply subsidizes the cost of insurance for those who don't make as much at a cost to those who make more. That is to say, it's all about who is paying for insurance. And you still arent seeing that these people, the ones you complain who are not paying their "fair share" as the "rich" you wish to protect.... -- they wont pay anyways. -- they cost you anyways -- the benefit is getting them into a doctors office sooner than an er later. -- er visits are far more expensive than physician offices and outpatient labs. quote: Haven't had one. The only time I was a candidate for it, the orthopedic surgeon recommended against it because it wasn't really necessary for the surgery I was getting. That was back in '03 or '04. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/15/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/ And you didnt answer the questions. More government mandating prices? Banning insurance companies from health care? I have yet to see how you are going to miraculously cut costs in half....

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 5:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? Wait.... lol.... Its sorta hard to stop laughing at this point. ROFL Yeah, back when Clinton was in office, or did you forget? What legislation was going to separate CEO bonuses, lobbyists, executive bonuses and stockholders from health care? quote: Or, do you mean cutting costs in half... that still leaves many unable to afford medical caIre? Have to start somewhere (and you do realize the 50% reduction was merely an example, right?) quote: quote: Instead of addressing the actual cost of care (that is, the costs of a medical procedure, a doctor visit, etc.), Obamacare simply subsidizes the cost of insurance for those who don't make as much at a cost to those who make more. That is to say, it's all about who is paying for insurance. And you still arent seeing that these people, the ones you complain who are not paying their "fair share" as the "rich" you wish to protect.... -- they wont pay anyways. -- they cost you anyways -- the benefit is getting them into a doctors office sooner than an er later. -- er visits are far more expensive than physician offices and outpatient labs. Sooooo, making the cost of going to the doctor lower won't help those who can't afford it now to go before needing an ER visit? And, if they are already costing the system (assuming, of course, that they are being paid for by someone, regardless of who), why is it going to cost more to get them insurance coverage? quote: quote: Haven't had one. The only time I was a candidate for it, the orthopedic surgeon recommended against it because it wasn't really necessary for the surgery I was getting. That was back in '03 or '04. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/15/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/ And you didnt answer the questions. More government mandating prices? No. Notice what happened with MedicAid in areas with lower reimbursements compared to areas with higher reimbursements. quote: Banning insurance companies from health care? I have yet to see how you are going to miraculously cut costs in half.... Not banning insurance companies from health care, but separating the insurance companies from also owning and operating the care providers would be an awesome first step. Opening up insurance to be bought across state lines would be helpful, too. Why do our GP's get paid nearly 50% more than the average GP in the UK? 225% of GP's in France? 268% of GP's in Italy? almost 100% more than GP's in Australia? [source] Another interesting article... Capping the malpractice awards will help, too. The miracle will be getting Government to free the Market enough to work.

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 7:10:31 AM)
quote: What legislation was going to separate CEO bonuses, lobbyists, executive bonuses and stockholders from health care? ROFL... what politician is going to vote that in? What politician is going to propose that? quote: Have to start somewhere (and you do realize the 50% reduction was merely an example, right?) We have started somewhere. You just dont like where we started. quote: Sooooo, making the cost of going to the doctor lower won't help those who can't afford it now to go before needing an ER visit? Go in for a few stitches, walk out now with a 3k bill... 1500 is going to be better for someone who makes minimum wage? No income? Has to decide between bills and an ER visit? really? quote: And, if they are already costing the system (assuming, of course, that they are being paid for by someone, regardless of who), why is it going to cost more to get them insurance coverage? Of course its going to cost them to get insurance... if nothing else than a co-pay. Even on Medicaid I had co-pays for certain services... or did you think its a completely free ride? quote: No. Notice what happened with MedicAid in areas with lower reimbursements compared to areas with higher reimbursements. Which is why I prefer a single payer. By far the cheapest way to go. quote: Not banning insurance companies from health care, but separating the insurance companies from also owning and operating the care providers would be an awesome first step. Opening up insurance to be bought across state lines would be helpful, too. Closing the barn door after the horses are out wont work. Thats what they higher lawyers and tax accountants for. And does nothing for those who are truly in need now. quote: Why do our GP's get paid nearly 50% more than the average GP in the UK? 225% of GP's in France? 268% of GP's in Italy? almost 100% more than GP's in Australia? [source] The UK, and I believe this is correct, charges £3000 a year. Since higher education is funded by the state, the fees are very low; the tuition varies from €150 to €700 depending on the university and the different levels of education. (licence, master, doctorate). One can therefore get a Master's degree (in 5 years) for about €750-3,500. Additionally, students from low-income families can apply for scholarships, paying nominal sums for tuition or textbooks, and can receive a monthly stipend of up to €450 per month. Think the fact that they come out with so much debt in the US might have something to do with it? quote: Capping the malpractice awards will help, too. 2%.... they waste more than that on lunch. quote: The miracle will be getting Government to free the Market enough to work. Wait.... freeing the market... yet you are insisting on legislation to cut prices, to get insurance companies out of medicine, to keep physicians from being in certain services.... yet you want the Free Market to work? Kindly explain the logic in that?

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 8:09:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: What legislation was going to separate CEO bonuses, lobbyists, executive bonuses and stockholders from health care? ROFL... what politician is going to vote that in? What politician is going to propose that? Sooooo, it wasn't proposed then. Contradict much? quote: quote: Have to start somewhere (and you do realize the 50% reduction was merely an example, right?) We have started somewhere. You just dont like where we started. You're right. Breathtakingly obvious. quote: quote: Sooooo, making the cost of going to the doctor lower won't help those who can't afford it now to go before needing an ER visit? Go in for a few stitches, walk out now with a 3k bill... 1500 is going to be better for someone who makes minimum wage? No income? Has to decide between bills and an ER visit? really? Goes back to the whole "lowering of the cost of procedures," no? quote: quote: And, if they are already costing the system (assuming, of course, that they are being paid for by someone, regardless of who), why is it going to cost more to get them insurance coverage? Of course its going to cost them to get insurance... if nothing else than a co-pay. Even on Medicaid I had co-pays for certain services... or did you think its a completely free ride? Actually, now we have an opposite situation from earlier. I was speaking of the aggregate cost of insuring everyone, not the individual costs of getting insurance. lol quote: quote: No. Notice what happened with MedicAid in areas with lower reimbursements compared to areas with higher reimbursements. Which is why I prefer a single payer. By far the cheapest way to go. Unless you are the one paying... quote: quote: Not banning insurance companies from health care, but separating the insurance companies from also owning and operating the care providers would be an awesome first step. Opening up insurance to be bought across state lines would be helpful, too. Closing the barn door after the horses are out wont work. Thats what they higher lawyers and tax accountants for. And does nothing for those who are truly in need now. How about we get the horses back in and then close the doors? Nah, that'd never work. quote: quote: Why do our GP's get paid nearly 50% more than the average GP in the UK? 225% of GP's in France? 268% of GP's in Italy? almost 100% more than GP's in Australia? [source] The UK, and I believe this is correct, charges £3000 a year. Since higher education is funded by the state, the fees are very low; the tuition varies from €150 to €700 depending on the university and the different levels of education. (licence, master, doctorate). One can therefore get a Master's degree (in 5 years) for about €750-3,500. Additionally, students from low-income families can apply for scholarships, paying nominal sums for tuition or textbooks, and can receive a monthly stipend of up to €450 per month. Think the fact that they come out with so much debt in the US might have something to do with it? Yep. And, why do they incur so much debt? Because tuition is expensive. Why? Because (at least in part) there is a monopoly on the accrediting body for schools and for doctors. quote: Capping the malpractice awards will help, too. 2%.... they waste more than that on lunch. So, every little bit doesn't help? quote: quote: The miracle will be getting Government to free the Market enough to work. Wait.... freeing the market... yet you are insisting on legislation to cut prices, to get insurance companies out of medicine, to keep physicians from being in certain services.... yet you want the Free Market to work? Kindly explain the logic in that? Where have I insisted on legislation to cut prices, or to get insurance out of medicine, or to keep physicians from being in certain services?!? Legislation to separate insurance companies from also owning the care providers isn't getting "insurance out of medicine." Freeing the Market (which would be how prices get lowered, btw) isn't necessarily going to mean getting rid of regulations. Separating the insurance companies from the care providers is going to allow the Market to work better as the two entities won't be tied together. Allowing insurance companies to operate across State lines should also result in more competition between insurance companies that will either reduce the cost of insurance by offering larger risk pools, reduce the cost of insurance as they negotiate better prices with care providers while competing for more customers, or both. Markets normally don't work properly when there are monopolies or oligopolies. Regulation to prevent both actually results in a more free Market, oddly enough.

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 8:41:38 AM)
quote: quote: People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? Wait.... lol.... Its sorta hard to stop laughing at this point. ROFL Yeah, back when Clinton was in office, or did you forget? Or, do you mean cutting costs in half... that still leaves many unable to afford medical caIre? quote: Sooooo, it wasn't proposed then. Contradict much? Not at all. You werent clear to begin with. quote: quote: Sooooo, making the cost of going to the doctor lower won't help those who can't afford it now to go before needing an ER Go in for a few stitches, walk out now with a 3k bill... 1500 is going to be better for someone who makes minimum wage? No income? Has to decide between bills and an ER visit? really? Goes back to the whole "lowering of the cost of procedures," no? Yet doesnt make it anywhere near affordable for those without insurance. When was the last time you could afford to yank out 1500 dollars from your pocket at a moments notice? quote: quote: quote: And, if they are already costing the system (assuming, of course, that they are being paid for by someone, regardless of who), why is it going to cost more to get them insurance coverage? Of course its going to cost them to get insurance... if nothing else than a co-pay. Even on Medicaid I had co-pays for certain services... or did you think its a completely free ride? Actually, now we have an opposite situation from earlier. I was speaking of the aggregate cost of insuring everyone, not the individual costs of getting insurance. lol Yet the individual costs add up to the aggregate costs. [;)] quote: quote: quote: No. Notice what happened with MedicAid in areas with lower reimbursements compared to areas with higher reimbursements. Which is why I prefer a single payer. By far the cheapest way to go. Unless you are the one paying... Less billing... less risk for double billing.. less chance for fraud.. less personnel required for billing... less time in waiting... less need for learning new rules and regulations for each insurance company... less chance for screw up in billing... I see lots of cost savings. quote: How about we get the horses back in and then close the doors? Nah, that'd never work. Glad you finally realize that. [;)] The free market allowed this. Now you are complaining about it? quote: Yep. And, why do they incur so much debt? Because tuition is expensive. Why? Because (at least in part) there is a monopoly on the accrediting body for schools and for doctors. The training is no different. Its not more expensive other than the fact that colleges get away with charging so much. quote: So, every little bit doesn't help? I dont believe that should be the focus... because its a "Lets try this and wait and see" while people are still going without health care, still ending up on dialysis (to use the example I gave earlier that you never addressed) quote: Where have I insisted on legislation to cut prices, Exactly how do you propose those prices be cut? They sure arent going to agree willingly. quote: or to get insurance out of medicine Not banning insurance companies from health care, but separating the insurance companies from also owning and operating the care providers would be an awesome first step. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4433265 Will require legislation to make that not allowed. quote: , or to keep physicians from being in certain services?!? Physicians have their hands into many aspects of medicine, including labs and free standing radiology/imaging. They are hand in hand with insurance companies who are also owning many hospital systems. And you want to untangle all that mess now? Why were you not concerned about this while it was happening? The whole system needs dismantling... but in that process there is a massive risk of no care being provided at all. I realize you are simply looking after your own wallet. But you have yet to show how this is going to cost you, personally, more money?

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 10:55:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: quote: People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? Wait.... lol.... Its sorta hard to stop laughing at this point. ROFL Yeah, back when Clinton was in office, or did you forget? Or, do you mean cutting costs in half... that still leaves many unable to afford medical caIre? quote: Sooooo, it wasn't proposed then. Contradict much? Not at all. You werent clear to begin with. I wasn't clear?!? You: Stock holders, CEO bonuses, Executive bonuses, Lobbyists ... What do those 4 things have to do with health care? Me: They all need to be disconnected from it. You: But they arent, and people have waited long enough to wait for more legislation to ensure that happens. Me: People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? You: Wait.... lol.... Its sorta hard to stop laughing at this point. ROFL Yeah, back when Clinton was in office, or did you forget? Me: What legislation was going to separate CEO bonuses, lobbyists, executive bonuses and stockholders from health care? You: ROFL... what politician is going to vote that in? What politician is going to propose that? Me: Sooooo, it wasn't proposed then. Contradict much? You: Not at all. You werent clear to begin with. So, which part wasn't clear? If you're having a tough time following a conversation, it would shock me. You're normally a lot better about that. quote: quote: Sooooo, making the cost of going to the doctor lower won't help those who can't afford it now to go before needing an ER Go in for a few stitches, walk out now with a 3k bill... 1500 is going to be better for someone who makes minimum wage? No income? Has to decide between bills and an ER visit? really? Goes back to the whole "lowering of the cost of procedures," no? Yet doesnt make it anywhere near affordable for those without insurance. When was the last time you could afford to yank out 1500 dollars from your pocket at a moments notice? Well, the first time will be the current last time. I'll let you know. [:D] See how you do this bullshit? You want insurance to cost less so people can buy it to pay for medical care that costs too much. I want to lower the cost of medical care, which will have the added benefit of lowering the cost of insurance, too. quote: quote: quote: And, if they are already costing the system (assuming, of course, that they are being paid for by someone, regardless of who), why is it going to cost more to get them insurance coverage? Of course its going to cost them to get insurance... if nothing else than a co-pay. Even on Medicaid I had co-pays for certain services... or did you think its a completely free ride? Actually, now we have an opposite situation from earlier. I was speaking of the aggregate cost of insuring everyone, not the individual costs of getting insurance. lol Yet the individual costs add up to the aggregate costs. [;)] At no point did I ever disagree with that, but that wasn't the question anyway. If the aggregate cost of paying for the care of those who don't/won't/can't pay for their own medical care is already being paid for, in aggregate, why is it going to cost more, in aggregate, to get them covered by insurance? I'm sure you'll still find a way to wriggle out of answering that directly. quote: quote: quote: quote: No. Notice what happened with MedicAid in areas with lower reimbursements compared to areas with higher reimbursements. Which is why I prefer a single payer. By far the cheapest way to go. Unless you are the one paying... Less billing... less risk for double billing.. less chance for fraud.. less personnel required for billing... less time in waiting... less need for learning new rules and regulations for each insurance company... less chance for screw up in billing... I see lots of cost savings. And, then you'll probably bitch because unemployment goes up. I'm not convinced (and I'm not saying you've ever made this claim or that you agree or disagree with me) that all the double billing, and other bullshit isn't intentional to see what they can get away with. quote: quote: How about we get the horses back in and then close the doors? Nah, that'd never work. Glad you finally realize that. [;)] The free market allowed this. Now you are complaining about it? I forgot something in that post to show my intent... [8\|]. There it is. And, great way to not address it, btw. quote: quote: Yep. And, why do they incur so much debt? Because tuition is expensive. Why? Because (at least in part) there is a monopoly on the accrediting body for schools and for doctors. The training is no different. Its not more expensive other than the fact that colleges get away with charging so much. Oh? So, having larger class sizes doesn't tend to lower the cost incurred by the students? If a school is paying a professor $10k/class (completely made up number for demonstration purposes only) for 10 students (yet another completely made up number for demonstration purposes), that's $1k/student for that class. Even if we give the prof 50% more for that class ($15k; same made up number, just mathemagically changed) but double the class size to 20 students (same mathemagics process), the cost/student drops to $750. Tuition could be lowered, no? quote: quote: So, every little bit doesn't help? I dont believe that should be the focus... because its a "Lets try this and wait and see" while people are still going without health care, still ending up on dialysis (to use the example I gave earlier that you never addressed) Didn't need to address it. I do believe we've gone 'round and 'round with it or similar examples previously. quote: quote: Where have I insisted on legislation to cut prices, Exactly how do you propose those prices be cut? They sure arent going to agree willingly. quote: or to get insurance out of medicine Not banning insurance companies from health care, but separating the insurance companies from also owning and operating the care providers would be an awesome first step. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4433265 Will require legislation to make that not allowed. That's not keeping insurance out of medicine. Insurance will still be paying, no? quote: quote: , or to keep physicians from being in certain services?!? Physicians have their hands into many aspects of medicine, including labs and free standing radiology/imaging. They are hand in hand with insurance companies who are also owning many hospital systems. And you want to untangle all that mess now? Why were you not concerned about this while it was happening? When did this happen? Didn't it start in the 70's and 80's? If so, I was either pre-school, or somewhere in el-hi depending on when it started. I didn't have much concern with this stuff back then. While I was in college, there were 3 dominant plans and two merged, leaving only two. As long as I've known, all the hospitals in this area (save one which may or may not have been bought by one.. there was an FTC challenge, but I can't seem to find any definitive end solution) have been owned by the insurers, so I think I have no real responsibility in how this happened. It would be like blaming me for Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's and Bush I's elections. quote: The whole system needs dismantling... but in that process there is a massive risk of no care being provided at all. I realize you are simply looking after your own wallet. But you have yet to show how this is going to cost you, personally, more money? How what is going to cost me personally more money? I don't have insurance, so buying insurance is going to cost me more. My physician visits while I was married cost $15 co-pay and would cost $42 now (but, that is a reduced cost compared to what is charged to those on insurance; that is, more health care $$ being spent, though not necessarily by me). I have previously mentioned the cost differences of my two Rx medications, of which I'm only on one now. Again, no cost to anyone but me, and an overall lower $$ amount than what was being charged to the aggregate health care system while I was on a plan. In the case of one Rx, my 3-month spend was lower than my co-pays for the same amount, ignoring what was charged to the insurance company completely. So, if I have to spend money to buy insurance, it'll likely cost me more than what I'm paying now. And, if I'm hit with a no-insurance tax, it will likely cost me more money than what I'm paying now, too. Even if I don't go to the Dr., I'm likely to spend more in premiums than I would spend cash now. So, what were you asking, again?

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 11:34:14 AM)
quote: I wasn't clear?!? No, you werent. quote: People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? Legislation to prevent what, people waiting? [8\|] quote: So, which part wasn't clear? If you're having a tough time following a conversation, it would shock me. You're normally a lot better about that. See above. quote: Well, the first time will be the current last time. I'll let you know. See how you do this bullshit? You want insurance to cost less so people can buy it to pay for medical care that costs too much. I want to lower the cost of medical care, which will have the added benefit of lowering the cost of insurance, too. Lets get this straight. I dont care who pays... i dont care how its paid... hell, I dont care if its paid.. I want people to get care... period. Regardless of how you view it, insurance companies are NOT going broke. They are posting record profits while getting people to complain that we cant afford to cover people. And all you seem to concern yourself with is the free market. Just who will be left to run, or even engage, in this free market? quote: At no point did I ever disagree with that, but that wasn't the question anyway. If the aggregate cost of paying for the care of those who don't/won't/can't pay for their own medical care is already being paid for, in aggregate, why is it going to cost more, in aggregate, to get them covered by insurance? Initial costs for anything always increases the aggregate. quote: And, then you'll probably bitch because unemployment goes up. I'm not convinced (and I'm not saying you've ever made this claim or that you agree or disagree with me) that all the double billing, and other bullshit isn't intentional to see what they can get away with. Send a bill coded right for one company to another company, which may be coded wrong using the same codes, and its denied. Requiring a research into why it was denied, either initiated by the insurance holder, or the office itself, adding to the man hours and the cost of getting that bill paid. Coupled with the loss of income due to the lag time in getting the bill paid due to denial. quote: I forgot something in that post to show my intent... . There it is. And, great way to not address it, btw. It was specifically addressed, Mr We Need Less Government who is yet again promoting more government intervention to get his free market to work as he demands. quote: Oh? So, having larger class sizes doesn't tend to lower the cost incurred by the students? If a school is paying a professor $10k/class (completely made up number for demonstration purposes only) for 10 students (yet another completely made up number for demonstration purposes), that's $1k/student for that class. Even if we give the prof 50% more for that class ($15k; same made up number, just mathemagically changed) but double the class size to 20 students (same mathemagics process), the cost/student drops to $750. Tuition could be lowered, no? We have yet to touch the tuition cost/debt load of physicians in this country. Do feel free to start that thread. quote: That's not keeping insurance out of medicine. Insurance will still be paying, no? To the extent they are allowed today, yes it is. quote: When did this happen? Didn't it start in the 70's and 80's? If so, I was either pre-school, or somewhere in el-hi depending on when it started. I didn't have much concern with this stuff back then. While I was in college, there were 3 dominant plans and two merged, leaving only two. As long as I've known, all the hospitals in this area (save one which may or may not have been bought by one.. there was an FTC challenge, but I can't seem to find any definitive end solution) have been owned by the insurers, so I think I have no real responsibility in how this happened. It would be like blaming me for Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's and Bush I's elections. Nixon got the ball rolling. It gained steam in the late 80's and came out full fledge in the 90's with HCA. quote: How what is going to cost me personally more money? I don't have insurance, so buying insurance is going to cost me more. My physician visits while I was married cost $15 co-pay and would cost $42 now (but, that is a reduced cost compared to what is charged to those on insurance; that is, more health care $$ being spent, though not necessarily by me). I have previously mentioned the cost differences of my two Rx medications, of which I'm only on one now. Again, no cost to anyone but me, and an overall lower $$ amount than what was being charged to the aggregate health care system while I was on a plan. In the case of one Rx, my 3-month spend was lower than my co-pays for the same amount, ignoring what was charged to the insurance company completely. So, if I have to spend money to buy insurance, it'll likely cost me more than what I'm paying now. And, if I'm hit with a no-insurance tax, it will likely cost me more money than what I'm paying now, too. Even if I don't go to the Dr., I'm likely to spend more in premiums than I would spend cash now. So, what were you asking, again? So you are adding to the cost aggregate by not having insurance. You are lucky to have not been hit. In the past 2 years, I have had surgery, and so has Master Dinnardin, who got extremely ill with a perforated appendix. There was nothing either of us could do to prevent what happened to us. No way to change diet to fix these issues. No amount of exercise would have reduced the risk. He has insurance, and still ends up with huge bills, though the insurance did enable him to some great care and less worries about dealing with finances while working through the health issue. Its easy to settle back and say.... people need to be responsible... and yet when it happens to you, then the song changes. My doctor visits would be 115... reduced cash price. Routine visit... sick visit will cost 150. What makes my doctor more expensive than yours? location I suppose. So while all you fellas argue and bitch about how to fix the free market so it can fix itself (which it could have all along and refused to do), people still need care. How much longer do you expect them to go without?

DesideriScuri -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 12:29:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I wasn't clear?!? No, you werent. quote: People have waited long enough?!? Huh? Has there been legislation written that would do this? Legislation to prevent what, people waiting? [8\|] quote: So, which part wasn't clear? If you're having a tough time following a conversation, it would shock me. You're normally a lot better about that. See above. You have every right to be obtuse. Enjoy it. quote: quote: Well, the first time will be the current last time. I'll let you know. See how you do this bullshit? You want insurance to cost less so people can buy it to pay for medical care that costs too much. I want to lower the cost of medical care, which will have the added benefit of lowering the cost of insurance, too. Lets get this straight. I dont care who pays... i dont care how its paid... hell, I dont care if its paid.. I want people to get care... period. And, they are getting care. So, what's your beef? quote: Regardless of how you view it, insurance companies are NOT going broke. They are posting record profits while getting people to complain that we cant afford to cover people. And all you seem to concern yourself with is the free market. Just who will be left to run, or even engage, in this free market? What do you care if insurance companies are making record or any profits? It's not about the money for you, right? quote: quote: At no point did I ever disagree with that, but that wasn't the question anyway. If the aggregate cost of paying for the care of those who don't/won't/can't pay for their own medical care is already being paid for, in aggregate, why is it going to cost more, in aggregate, to get them covered by insurance? Initial costs for anything always increases the aggregate. quote: And, then you'll probably bitch because unemployment goes up. I'm not convinced (and I'm not saying you've ever made this claim or that you agree or disagree with me) that all the double billing, and other bullshit isn't intentional to see what they can get away with. Send a bill coded right for one company to another company, which may be coded wrong using the same codes, and its denied. Requiring a research into why it was denied, either initiated by the insurance holder, or the office itself, adding to the man hours and the cost of getting that bill paid. Coupled with the loss of income due to the lag time in getting the bill paid due to denial. Hey, I know. More government regulation time. How about government decide on a coding standard? Nah, that would solve that problem without any real increase in government power. quote: quote: I forgot something in that post to show my intent... . There it is. And, great way to not address it, btw. It was specifically addressed, Mr We Need Less Government who is yet again promoting more government intervention to get his free market to work as he demands. OMG!!! You finally understand that the free Market needs some regulation to work properly?!?!? Marking it down in my calendar now... quote: quote: Oh? So, having larger class sizes doesn't tend to lower the cost incurred by the students? If a school is paying a professor $10k/class (completely made up number for demonstration purposes only) for 10 students (yet another completely made up number for demonstration purposes), that's $1k/student for that class. Even if we give the prof 50% more for that class ($15k; same made up number, just mathemagically changed) but double the class size to 20 students (same mathemagics process), the cost/student drops to $750. Tuition could be lowered, no? We have yet to touch the tuition cost/debt load of physicians in this country. Do feel free to start that thread. Um, wasn't my last comment something about tuition cost (and, therefore, debt load)? quote: quote: That's not keeping insurance out of medicine. Insurance will still be paying, no? To the extent they are allowed today, yes it is. Not sure what you are saying with that. quote: quote: When did this happen? Didn't it start in the 70's and 80's? If so, I was either pre-school, or somewhere in el-hi depending on when it started. I didn't have much concern with this stuff back then. While I was in college, there were 3 dominant plans and two merged, leaving only two. As long as I've known, all the hospitals in this area (save one which may or may not have been bought by one.. there was an FTC challenge, but I can't seem to find any definitive end solution) have been owned by the insurers, so I think I have no real responsibility in how this happened. It would be like blaming me for Nixon's, Carter's, Reagan's and Bush I's elections. Nixon got the ball rolling. It gained steam in the late 80's and came out full fledge in the 90's with HCA. So, being born in 1970, you can see how I wouldn't have had much interest in politics of Nixon/Carter, right? To be honest, I disliked politics during Reagan/Bush/Clinton and Bush II (first 6 years). Very difficult for me to have come out for or against anything that happened before Bush II. quote: quote: How what is going to cost me personally more money? I don't have insurance, so buying insurance is going to cost me more. My physician visits while I was married cost $15 co-pay and would cost $42 now (but, that is a reduced cost compared to what is charged to those on insurance; that is, more health care $$ being spent, though not necessarily by me). I have previously mentioned the cost differences of my two Rx medications, of which I'm only on one now. Again, no cost to anyone but me, and an overall lower $$ amount than what was being charged to the aggregate health care system while I was on a plan. In the case of one Rx, my 3-month spend was lower than my co-pays for the same amount, ignoring what was charged to the insurance company completely. So, if I have to spend money to buy insurance, it'll likely cost me more than what I'm paying now. And, if I'm hit with a no-insurance tax, it will likely cost me more money than what I'm paying now, too. Even if I don't go to the Dr., I'm likely to spend more in premiums than I would spend cash now. So, what were you asking, again? So you are adding to the cost aggregate by not having insurance. You are lucky to have not been hit. In the past 2 years, I have had surgery, and so has Master Dinnardin, who got extremely ill with a perforated appendix. There was nothing either of us could do to prevent what happened to us. No way to change diet to fix these issues. No amount of exercise would have reduced the risk. He has insurance, and still ends up with huge bills, though the insurance did enable him to some great care and less worries about dealing with finances while working through the health issue. Its easy to settle back and say.... people need to be responsible... and yet when it happens to you, then the song changes. My doctor visits would be 115... reduced cash price. Routine visit... sick visit will cost 150. What makes my doctor more expensive than yours? location I suppose. So while all you fellas argue and bitch about how to fix the free market so it can fix itself (which it could have all along and refused to do), people still need care. How much longer do you expect them to go without? How did I add to the cost of aggregate care by not having insurance?

tazzygirl -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 12:37:10 PM)
quote: You have every right to be obtuse. Enjoy it. I was pretty clear. Stop pretending otherwise and move on. quote: And, they are getting care. So, what's your beef? That they have to wait till they are an emergent case before getting care. quote: What do you care if insurance companies are making record or any profits? It's not about the money for you, right? Nope, its not. Money IS an issue for you, which is why that was pertinent. quote: Hey, I know. More government regulation time. How about government decide on a coding standard? Nah, that would solve that problem without any real increase in government power. I know. What happened to Mr Less Government. Doesnt seem possible now. [;)] quote: OMG!!! You finally understand that the free Market needs some regulation to work properly?!?!? Marking it down in my calendar now... Back pedaling again Mr Less Government Let The Free Market Work It out on its own. Thats been your complaint the while time. Now you want to do a 180 and claim some is needed. It wasnt missed. [;)] quote: Um, wasn't my last comment something about tuition cost (and, therefore, debt load)? Again, start a thread and I will be more than happen to participate. quote: Not sure what you are saying with that. You never are. quote: So, being born in 1970, you can see how I wouldn't have had much interest in politics of Nixon/Carter, right? To be honest, I disliked politics during Reagan/Bush/Clinton and Bush II (first 6 years). Very difficult for me to have come out for or against anything that happened before Bush II. And by the age of 20, were you complaining about HCA? quote: How did I add to the cost of aggregate care by not having insurance? The reduced cost of your care is being added to the burden of insurance companies.

Paladinagain -> RE: health insurance not tied to employment (4/29/2013 12:38:33 PM)
How about a law that requires doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers to publish a price list. We would then know going in that an aspirin is going to cost you $15.00 etc. This would make them actually have to compete as well as make them justify costs. Also a law that prohibits insurance companies ownig shares of health care providers as well. I never understood people "donating" to hospitals. They are profit oriented companies like any other. I don't ever hear of someone "donating" a gas pump to the local gas station.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625