RE: US Health Care Costs

RE: US Health Care Costs (Full Version)

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

Message

Sanity -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/24/2014 5:03:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi That is pretty funny coming from someone who has to throw "leftist" in to every post he makes. The term "leftists" isnt derogatory, its descriptive. Call them "liberals" if you must but there is nothing liberal about them. And coming from you, someone who is never on topic, all you do is nag and bitch, who cares what you think.

Musicmystery -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/24/2014 5:38:23 PM)
And that, class, is today's example of projection. Here endeth the lesson.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/24/2014 5:59:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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! The AMA is an independent (i.e. private) professional organization and has nothing to do with the federal government. Oh? http://mises.org/library/myth-free-market-healthcare http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/47909/ama-more-monopoly-crisis-professional-association/john-r-graham http://karenallenhealthcare.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/e_politicsaboutcpt_article.pdf quote: quote: Health care providers are owned by the health care financiers. That's a conflict of interest if I've ever seen one! I'm not sure what you're driving at, and I don't know exactly what you mean by "health care financiers," but in any case healthcare is a business in the US and anybody or any company can own whatever business they like. From 1981 onwards all the regulatory agencies concerning businesses (FTC, Federal Reserve, OCC,FDIC, SEC, etc.) have spent the majority of their efforts in improving the quality of rubber and ink for their rubber stamping process. Seriously? Haven't you been paying any attention to the health care debate/discussion for the last, oh, 10+ years (only used that time frame because that's about as long as I've been paying attention to it)? Who finances health care? Um, insurance companies? quote: quote: 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. Trend lines are similar if they have a similar slope. Clearly, five of the six have similar slopes. Even more clearly, the line representing HC cost in the US has a conspicuously steeper slope, which is to say that the gap has been becoming wider all the time (from about 1979 onward), and is continuing to do so. What term, then, is used when graph lines all have pretty much the same ups/downs, at about the same times, but only vary in the magnitudes of those ups and downs? I think you knew what I meant anyway, but just wanted to be an ass about it. Congrats. It worked.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/24/2014 6:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 by the way sorry Desideriscuri I haven't addressed your original question, why do health care costs so much in the USA, because health care is considered as a common good or service, while the main difference with health care is you can't decide if buying it or not it just happens and you are forced to do so or in most cases have a shitty life in a lot of cases die. So how does market works you ask the price it maximize your profits and who can't afford it is "out of market". The maximum price is apparently 80% of the maximum amount of money health insurance can raise. It has nothing to do with the mere costs of procedures because there is no competition or choice the only limit is that “You can shear a sheep a lot of times, but you can only skin him once.”. Are you really saying that the costs of procedures has nothing to do with the cost of insurance, or how much money is spent for health care?!? I would actually say that it is the reimbursement rate of procedures. Not the cost. You want to play that game? Fine. Enjoy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/24/2014 6:03:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I was talking about procedure price in correlation with the cost the medical facility has to face, sorry I misunderstood your question. Hovever if the procedure's prices go up, the 20% profit is a larger number, that was part of my point. If there is a trust it's a cause if there is not it's a consequence of health care costs. 1. What 20% profit? 2. "If there is a trust it's a cause if there is not it's a consequence of health care costs." I don't understand what you were writing there. Please explain.

Sanity -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/24/2014 6:27:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery And that, class, is today's example of projection. Here endeth the lesson. Living in my shadow again Back for more...

JeffBC -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/24/2014 9:57:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 1. Why does Health Care Insurance Cost so much? I contend that insurance costs so much because cost for treatments and procedures costs so much. That begs the question: That is consistent with the facts as I understand them. 2. Why do procedures and treatments cost so much? Uh... ok. At the mathematics level it's because pretty much every single step in the process adds on levels of profit which are beyond insanity. 3. Is it inflated costing by the hospitals/providers? it is inflated costs by everyone and anyone except, arguably, the direct care providers. 4. What do you think would happen if the Federal Government took over the Administration of Health Care by running the hospitals? That is, how would costs change if the US Government was the Administrators of the care providers, paying a fair wage to the Administrative staff and only charging what it actually costs to cover the cost of supplies, those administrative costs, and pay the care providers (assuming care providers were self-employed contractors, charging what they wanted)? Me? I think that lobbying and political corruption will ensure that not much changes for the patients. I expect the Republican will blame the Democrats and vice versa as they both get paid out nicely. I would just like to go down that path because doing nothing is even more intolerable and at least then the corruption would be more exposed.

eulero83 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 12:55:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I was talking about procedure price in correlation with the cost the medical facility has to face, sorry I misunderstood your question. Hovever if the procedure's prices go up, the 20% profit is a larger number, that was part of my point. If there is a trust it's a cause if there is not it's a consequence of health care costs. 1. What 20% profit? 2. "If there is a trust it's a cause if there is not it's a consequence of health care costs." I don't understand what you were writing there. Please explain. you said under the ACA they have to spend 80% of money collected through policies in health care this means they get to keep the 20%, now I'm using numbers as example, if an insurance company now spends fot they insured let say 1 milion dollars they have to fix their math so that policies' money total is no more than 1250000 and their cut is 250 thousand, if an hospitals raise their prices so that insurance company will spend 1.1 milion dollars than to respect the legal limit they can raise up to 1375 thousand dollars and their cut will be 275 thousands so 25 thousands more profit. Now "if there is a trust" it means a group of major insurance companies' CEOs went play golf with a group of major health care companies' CEOs and thay talked about how to fix both their numbers so to raise both of them the highest amount, minor companies will just silently thank (so the 80% cap is the cause of higher prices for non insured). If there is not a trust simply major health care companies will research what's the number that maximize their profit and insurance companies will silently thank (so more profit for insurance companies is a consequence of free market laws). The problem with an only or mostly private health care system is that there will never be enough competition that's the base for a free market, to work both the provider and the customer have to be free. Those who say health care is a good like all the others are just plain stupid.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 3:17:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I was talking about procedure price in correlation with the cost the medical facility has to face, sorry I misunderstood your question. Hovever if the procedure's prices go up, the 20% profit is a larger number, that was part of my point. If there is a trust it's a cause if there is not it's a consequence of health care costs. 1. What 20% profit? 2. "If there is a trust it's a cause if there is not it's a consequence of health care costs." I don't understand what you were writing there. Please explain. you said under the ACA they have to spend 80% of money collected through policies in health care this means they get to keep the 20%, now I'm using numbers as example, if an insurance company now spends fot they insured let say 1 milion dollars they have to fix their math so that policies' money total is no more than 1250000 and their cut is 250 thousand, if an hospitals raise their prices so that insurance company will spend 1.1 milion dollars than to respect the legal limit they can raise up to 1375 thousand dollars and their cut will be 275 thousands so 25 thousands more profit. The 80% is what they have to pay out towards care. The 20% is where operating costs come from. So, all the people that work for the insurance company get paid out of that. All the administrative overhead (paper, utilities, rent, etc.) get paid out of that, too. So, your "20% profit" isn't actual profit. But, the rest of your paragraph is correct. If the cost of care (the amount billed out) increases, premiums will increase, too. Now, what would happen if an insurance company owned care providers? quote: Now "if there is a trust" it means a group of major insurance companies' CEOs went play golf with a group of major health care companies' CEOs and thay talked about how to fix both their numbers so to raise both of them the highest amount, minor companies will just silently thank (so the 80% cap is the cause of higher prices for non insured). If there is not a trust simply major health care companies will research what's the number that maximize their profit and insurance companies will silently thank (so more profit for insurance companies is a consequence of free market laws). The problem with an only or mostly private health care system is that there will never be enough competition that's the base for a free market, to work both the provider and the customer have to be free. Those who say health care is a good like all the others are just plain stupid. We will agree to disagree on whether health care is a good or not. The bolded part is important. How are providers not free? How are customers not free?

eulero83 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 4:49:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 The problem with an only or mostly private health care system is that there will never be enough competition that's the base for a free market, to work both the provider and the customer have to be free. Those who say health care is a good like all the others are just plain stupid. We will agree to disagree on whether health care is a good or not. The bolded part is important. How are providers not free? How are customers not free? I said both, implying only the providers are actually free, customers are not because you don't decide if you want health care or not when you need it you just need it, and you can't even avoid it, some conditions are due to unhealty behaviour, but the biggest majority just happens.

eulero83 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 4:54:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The 80% is what they have to pay out towards care. The 20% is where operating costs come from. So, all the people that work for the insurance company get paid out of that. All the administrative overhead (paper, utilities, rent, etc.) get paid out of that, too. So, your "20% profit" isn't actual profit. But, the rest of your paragraph is correct. If the cost of care (the amount billed out) increases, premiums will increase, too. Now, what would happen if an insurance company owned care providers? just change profit with revenue and let's move on. It doesn't change the points as paper, utilities, rent, etc. won't raise if prices are higher.

MariaB -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 8:40:15 AM)
I know this is a diversion of topic but a brief scan around google found me this https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/03254422068/healthcare-isnt-free-market-its-giant-economic-scam.shtml In December, when the New York Times ran a story about how a deficit deal might threaten hospital payments, Steven Safyer, chief executive of Montefiore Medical Center, a large nonprofit hospital system in the Bronx, complained, “There is no such thing as a cut to a provider that isn’t a cut to a beneficiary … This is not crying wolf.” Actually, Safyer seems to be crying wolf to the tune of about $196.8 million, according to the hospital’s latest publicly available tax return. That was his hospital’s operating profit, according to its 2010 return. With $2.586 billion in revenue — of which 99.4% came from patient bills and 0.6% from fundraising events and other charitable contributions — Safyer’s business is more than six times as large as that of the Bronx’s most famous enterprise, the New York Yankees. Surely, without cutting services to beneficiaries, Safyer could cut what have to be some of the Bronx’s better non-Yankee salaries: his own, which was $4,065,000, or those of his chief financial officer ($3,243,000), his executive vice president ($2,220,000) or the head of his dental department ($1,798,000).

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 9:23:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The 80% is what they have to pay out towards care. The 20% is where operating costs come from. So, all the people that work for the insurance company get paid out of that. All the administrative overhead (paper, utilities, rent, etc.) get paid out of that, too. So, your "20% profit" isn't actual profit. But, the rest of your paragraph is correct. If the cost of care (the amount billed out) increases, premiums will increase, too. I am willing to bet that insurance company accountants use some pretty creative accounting to make sure that silly (but expensive) recurring costs like basic staff salaries, most of the overheads and other stuff get headed under the ambiguously titled 'towards care'". Simple argument: if it weren't for people taking calls and coordinating resources, the care wouldn't happen. And for them to operate efficiently and properly they need desks, chairs, phones, pens, pencils, paper, computers etc etc. A good and clever accountant would have those under wraps of 'care components'. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Now, what would happen if an insurance company owned care providers? Nothing whatsoever. They would be separate and fiscally independent entities. What a great way to rip-off customers. Overcharge on premiums. Overcharge on services. etc etc. Pay massive salaries to CEO's and senior staff and board members. Then bang up the prices in their own care centres to maximize profits - double whammy. One part of their organization bills the other at horrendously exorbitant costs knowing the patient/co-pay foots the bill and the premiums are pushed up to cover those costs - paid for by the individual or employer. Two lots of income from one patient. What a fucking rip-off. And because there is no incentive to curb the costs at all..... Joe Schmoe has to foot the bill.

MariaB -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 12:06:12 PM)
Its nothing more than a money-spinning cartel where personal bank balances are put before their patients needs. You live in a country where insurance companies enrich themselves at the expense of society and consultants routinely put their bank balances before their patients needs. ETS, this is not in reply to FD

tj444 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 12:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 tj444 I understand that was something in the "in this moment that's the best thing you can do" but it still is a kind of russian rulette, if you are lucky enough fine, if something bad happens to you well the worse has yet to come. hey, this isn't my system, I am not defending it at all.. I'm a Canadian and the US system (with or without Obamacare) is just plain stupid, even at its best.. that people have to do what I suggest in an attempt to get quality affordable healthcare is mind boggling.. Canada's system isn't perfect but its considerably better than this complicated corrupt US hack job.. Why Americans put up with it just shows what a country of brainwashed sheeple they have become..

eulero83 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 12:53:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB I know this is a diversion of topic but a brief scan around google found me this https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130222/03254422068/healthcare-isnt-free-market-its-giant-economic-scam.shtml In December, when the New York Times ran a story about how a deficit deal might threaten hospital payments, Steven Safyer, chief executive of Montefiore Medical Center, a large nonprofit hospital system in the Bronx, complained, “There is no such thing as a cut to a provider that isn’t a cut to a beneficiary … This is not crying wolf.” Actually, Safyer seems to be crying wolf to the tune of about $196.8 million, according to the hospital’s latest publicly available tax return. That was his hospital’s operating profit, according to its 2010 return. With $2.586 billion in revenue — of which 99.4% came from patient bills and 0.6% from fundraising events and other charitable contributions — Safyer’s business is more than six times as large as that of the Bronx’s most famous enterprise, the New York Yankees. Surely, without cutting services to beneficiaries, Safyer could cut what have to be some of the Bronx’s better non-Yankee salaries: his own, which was $4,065,000, or those of his chief financial officer ($3,243,000), his executive vice president ($2,220,000) or the head of his dental department ($1,798,000). It's not a diversion to the topic, it's just another aspect. Maybe it's because I'm italian but this doesn't surprise me, it's pretty common for "no profit" companies in very profitable markets to work like that, credit unions for example, they are suppose to spend all the profit for members but at the end of the year there are no profits. Actually I think many charities work that way too, they use a small part of donations for actual projects and the people in charge raise their salaries with the rest of it.

eulero83 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 12:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 tj444 I understand that was something in the "in this moment that's the best thing you can do" but it still is a kind of russian rulette, if you are lucky enough fine, if something bad happens to you well the worse has yet to come. hey, this isn't my system, I am not defending it at all.. I'm a Canadian and the US system (with or without Obamacare) is just plain stupid, even at its best.. that people have to do what I suggest in an attempt to get quality affordable healthcare is mind boggling.. Canada's system isn't perfect but its considerably better than this complicated corrupt US hack job.. Why Americans put up with it just shows what a country of brainwashed sheeple they have become.. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but the article and the other links you posted seemed to suggest the main problem was customer's laziness.

tj444 -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 1:06:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 tj444 I understand that was something in the "in this moment that's the best thing you can do" but it still is a kind of russian rulette, if you are lucky enough fine, if something bad happens to you well the worse has yet to come. hey, this isn't my system, I am not defending it at all.. I'm a Canadian and the US system (with or without Obamacare) is just plain stupid, even at its best.. that people have to do what I suggest in an attempt to get quality affordable healthcare is mind boggling.. Canada's system isn't perfect but its considerably better than this complicated corrupt US hack job.. Why Americans put up with it just shows what a country of brainwashed sheeple they have become.. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but the article and the other links you posted seemed to suggest the main problem was customer's laziness. given the system they have, for some (many?) people, they are lazy or too accepting and don't question.. again, they have turned into a nation of sheeple.. they don't see it tho.. (shrug)...

Musicmystery -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 1:31:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery And that, class, is today's example of projection. Here endeth the lesson. Living in my shadow again Back for more... And today's lesson, class, is an example of pure fantasy.

DesideriScuri -> RE: US Health Care Costs (11/25/2014 6:02:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 The problem with an only or mostly private health care system is that there will never be enough competition that's the base for a free market, to work both the provider and the customer have to be free. Those who say health care is a good like all the others are just plain stupid. We will agree to disagree on whether health care is a good or not. The bolded part is important. How are providers not free? How are customers not free? I said both, implying only the providers are actually free, customers are not because you don't decide if you want health care or not when you need it you just need it, and you can't even avoid it, some conditions are due to unhealty behaviour, but the biggest majority just happens. I think customers are more free, but only because I probably think health care usage in the US is used more by choice than you do (and I'm not disagreeing that shit happens, and when shit happens, you really don't have much of a choice). I wasn't sure if you were saying providers aren't free, which, to a certain extent, I would definitely agree with. I hold health care providers (nurses, doctors, etc.) in very high regard. A lot of times, they are in it more to help than to make a lot of money. That's a great spirit, imo, and should be held in high regard. Unless they own their own practice, they still have to toe the company line, which may or may not be what they truly think best. I have to add that much of the "acceptable" medical care providers are limited to AMA approved codes, so that naturally prevents alternative therapy from getting the same insurance support as traditional care. There are improvements in this, but, if the patient is truly to be free, as it pertains to health care, he/she should be able to direct his/her health care dollars towards whatever type of care desired.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02