DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
your claim was that "Lack of insurance hasn't killed a single person"
you are right, the virus, or the illness killed them,
THANK YOU!!!
quote:
but it makes the situation a lot worse and its and is even rhetorically disingenuous.
Having insurance doesnt save your life in the US having money to give to bean counters does.
Its a great system for those that can afford it
the rest can fuck off.
And, that's why I want to know why the cost of care is so fucking high, Lucy! It IS a great system for those that can afford it. If costs were lower, even more people could afford it (with or without insurance). And, more people would be able to afford insurance.
while you are finding out why it costs so much, people are dying because they cant get their healthcare needs covered, im sure they are really thankful for your thoughts and fart arsing around insisting that if costs were lower more people would be able to afford it...we have seen that no one in the industry is interested in cutting costs on their own. They could, they should, but they wont. who is going to stop it? no one.
Greed greed and ugliness.
Why should they cut costs? There is no incentive for them to do so. Why? Why can a Dr. charge as much as he/she does? Because he/she is in a "protected" class. The AMA has a virtual monopoly in deciding who can, who can't, and how many can/can't become doctors. It behooves them to keep the number of Dr.'s low, so their rates stay high. Thank you, Federal Government!
Health care providers are owned by the health care financiers. That's a conflict of interest if I've ever seen one! Shouldn't that be something the SEC/FTC/BMOC or whoever separates? When the two are wed, hospitals can continue to increase charges because insurance companies can just go to their policyholders and increase premiums. When the two are wed, the insurance end can stay lean and let the hospitals make up the profits. And, with reimbursements for charity care, hospitals have an incentive to increase their costs to pretend they are shelling out massive amounts of money in charity care (which also helps mask their profits).
Big Pharma can also make claims about charitable offerings, and keeping their drug prices high makes it easy for them to hide their profits, too. If a $1 COG pill can be written off as a $10 pill, why not do that?
So, no, they have no reason to lower costs. Obamacare isn't going to do that. Romneycare didn't do that.
Keeping the roadblocks to entrance into the field protects those already in the field. That applies across all sectors.
The VA has troubles. Why? I know, I know, Republicans reducing funding, yada yada yada. When the Democrats were in control, it wasn't fixed, either, so maybe it's not just Republicans?
When did Canada change to state(Province)-funded health care? What were the costs in the years leading up to that, and what's happened since? The current system started in 1984, didn't it?
As a %GDP, all 6 of those countries health care spend trend alike, don't they? The ups and downs are pretty much there for each country, but the magnitudes of those changes are different.
_____________________________
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: US Health Care Costs - 
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