Destroying Healthcare in America

[bclinger]

Private firefighting companies do exist in many areas - called volunteers. Works well in bunches of areas.

Originally Posted by Shizelbs

I think this scenario you present is fairly flippant. Nonetheless, the idea of private firefighting companies competing for municipal contracts to offer the best services at the best value is not ridiculous.

[treo800want]

Originally Posted by palandri

Let me relate emergency room cost to you. About 5 years ago I cut my foot, which required 6 stitches. I went to the Emergency room because I couldn't stop the bleeding. the total time I spend in the Emergency room was about an hour.

My first bill came and it was $1,600.00. I wasn't going to pay the whole amount because I have insurance. Next I get the $1,600.00 bill again with a past due notice that I am being turned over to collections. I went to the hospital, because I was furious. When I got there, they had just received my insurance payment and I owed $160.00, so I paid it.

Next I get I get a separate doctors bill for $2,200.00 my insurance paid all but $220.00 of the bill

So a one hour emergency room visit cost $3,800.00

And that's just for a cut foot...imagine something like a heart attack or seizure and brought in via ambulance and overnight stay in a hospital room. I have elderly father-in-law and even though has veterans benefits he's not on medicaid and very costly hospital stays overall.

[theog]

Originally Posted by treo800want

And that's just for a cut foot...imagine something like a heart attack or seizure and brought in via ambulance and overnight stay in a hospital room. I have elderly father-in-law and even though has veterans benefits he's not on medicaid and very costly hospital stays overall.

Most of the older guys HATE (yelling!!!) the VA. My dad won't go to a VA.

Myself, a VA saved my life... I trust them...

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Shizelbs

Its innaccurate to broadly assume that just because someone has no insurance, they also have no money.

But it makes for better statistics. They can just say "46 million Americans are without health coverage."

Forget, for a moment, that the claim itself is a lie. Why don't the people who like to toss around statistics ever talk about this statistic: according to the CDC, the number of people under 18 without health coverage decreased from 13.9% in 1997 to 8.9% in 2008.

If our health care industry was in such shambles, would we really expect to see things getting progressively better? And if they are getting progressively better,
why do we want to throw a huge wrench in the whole thing?

[Ethentroy]

I am sorry for the situation and hope for a full recovery.

[theog]

Originally Posted by groovy

But it makes for better statistics. They can just say "46 million Americans are without health coverage."

Forget, for a moment, that the claim itself is a lie. Why don't the people who like to toss around statistics ever talk about this statistic: according to the CDC, the number of people under 18 without health coverage decreased from 13.9% in 1997 to 8.9% in 2008.

If our health care industry was in such shambles, would we really expect to see things getting progressively better? And if they are getting progressively better,
why do we want to throw a huge wrench in the whole thing?

Unfortunately, overall uninsured Americans increased since 1997...

Althought, I still don't see a good point... 1% of kids going uninsured is 1% too many (and a BIG failure)!!!! But I guess having uninsured kids running around America is okay with you? (legit question, no attack...)

[Toby]

Originally Posted by theog

Unfortunately, overall uninsured Americans increased since 1997...

Defined how?

But I guess having uninsured kids running around America is okay with you? (legit question, no attack...)

To me, it depends why they're uninsured.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by theog

Unfortunately, overall uninsured Americans increased since 1997...

Doesn't that strike you as even a little bit fishy? I mean, children are still mostly insured through their parents, yes? If the number of insured children goes down dramatically then how can the total number of uninsured go up?

Also, please don't fall for the "uninsured Americans" lie. And it is a lie. Even if you believe the wildest estimates of uninsured, they're still talking about "uninsured people in America". Why is this important? Because I, for one, don't want to be stuck with the bill for people who are not in this country legally.

Althought, I still don't see a good point... 1% of kids going uninsured is 1% too many (and a BIG failure)!!!! But I guess having uninsured kids running around America is okay with you? (legit question, no attack...)

As I said before, I don't think its a good thing that children have no access to healthcare (notice I distinguish between having insurance and having access to healthcare). That's not the question. The question is what to do about it. Do we change the whole system at the exact time the total number of uninsured children is going down?

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by groovy

But it makes for better statistics. They can just say "46 million Americans are without health coverage."

Forget, for a moment, that the claim itself is a lie. Why don't the people who like to toss around statistics ever talk about this statistic: according to the CDC, the number of people under 18 without health coverage decreased from 13.9% in 1997 to 8.9% in 2008.

A main driver of the reduction in children without health coverage is the "State Children's Health Insurance Program", not a free market solution: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75384.php

The overall number of uninsure, however, continues to rise:

Private Health Insurance Coverage At 50-Year-Low, According to CDC - Kaiser Health News

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

A main driver of the reduction in children without health coverage is the "State Children's Health Insurance Program", not a free market solution: CDC Releases 2006 Uninsured Estimates For U.S. Adults, Children

I never said it was.

[rcyphermd]

As a physician, I see two quick ways to reduce health care costs that would allow funds to treat the uninsured:

1. Smoking costs our health care system an enormous amount. Do something to solve that, such as charging people that smoke higher premiums (much like auto insurance) and raise the cost so high on the cigarettes with taxes that more people would quit. The funds could be used to help insure the uninsured. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this logic can then be used for other self-inflicted problems as drug abuse and obesity. It is a slippery slope. But we have to start somewhere, and health care costs from cigarette smoking are astronomical.

2. Tort reform. Any doctor that says he does not practice defensive medicine to some degree is not being truthful. So much testing is done to protect against malpractice lawyers. With most legislators being lawyers, and heavily funded by the Legal Bar, I do not see this happening, unfortunately.

[palandri]

Originally Posted by rcyphermd

As a physician, I see two quick ways to reduce health care costs that would allow funds to treat the uninsured:

1. Smoking costs our health care system an enormous amount. Do something to solve that, such as charging people that smoke higher premiums (much like auto insurance) and raise the cost so high on the cigarettes with taxes that more people would quit. The funds could be used to help insure the uninsured. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this logic can then be used for other self-inflicted problems as drug abuse and obesity. It is a slippery slope. But we have to start somewhere, and health care costs from cigarette smoking are astronomical.

2. Tort reform. Any doctor that says he does not practice defensive medicine to some degree is not being truthful. So much testing is done to protect against malpractice lawyers. With most legislators being lawyers, and heavily funded by the Legal Bar, I do not see this happening, unfortunately.

Thanks for stopping by Doc!

I have a question for you. Even if we stop people from smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods...etc...so they live 10 to 15 years longer, aren't we still going to be spending an enormous amount treating them 10 to 15 years down the road for heart disease, cancer...etc? Hasn't cancer went up since we are living longer now?

[wp746911]

yeah that's the problem- have people live longer lives and you end up spending money the money you saved not treating emphysema/lung cancer on arthritis, alzheimers dz, nursing home care, etc- not always a cost saving measure. The IDEAL situation for the US is that you die in your sleep the day you retire, which happens to be the same day you qualify for medicare lol.

For whatever it's worth, I'm a MD too and this is my take- healthcare is too expensive, the private insurance model can't effectively continue long term. With time we will transition to a socialized medicine framework. I don't think our society can maintain the cost of private healthcare. But the problem will then become that we will see how substandard socialized medicine is, but it will be too late b/c once you go socialized you can't go back. Look I'm not arguing for or against either form, just giving my predictions.

[palandri]

Originally Posted by wp746911

yeah that's the problem- have people live longer lives and you end up spending money the money you saved not treating emphysema/lung cancer on arthritis, alzheimers dz, nursing home care, etc- not always a cost saving measure. The IDEAL situation for the US is that you die in your sleep the day you retire, which happens to be the same day you qualify for medicare lol.

For whatever it's worth, I'm a MD too and this is my take- healthcare is too expensive, the private insurance model can't effectively continue long term. With time we will transition to a socialized medicine framework. I don't think our society can maintain the cost of private healthcare. But the problem will then become that we will see how substandard socialized medicine is, but it will be too late b/c once you go socialized you can't go back. Look I'm not arguing for or against either form, just giving my predictions.

Thanks for adding your opinion!

[yiffzer]

I am jumping in too late but... we see that the monetary costs of healthcare has become exceedingly unaffordable. And what he said:

Originally Posted by wp746911

For whatever it's worth, I'm a MD too and this is my take- healthcare is too expensive, the private insurance model can't effectively continue long term.

If I have learned anything from basic economics, in the free market, if people refuse to buy things because a good costs too much, the company will try to reduce their costs in order to sell. This happens all the time, helped especially with competition.

Now why can't that same concept be applied to medicine/healthcare? If we all start refusing seeking medical attention, they may be forced to reduce costs so that people can actually begin considering it again. I understand this will require [a lot of] sacrifice in the beginning but in the long run, it helps achieve the cost reduction we wanted in the first place.

I don't know too much about how health insurance works (correct me if I am wrong)... but I think there is too much interfering by health insurance and the government. They both cause costs to go up somehow. Does anyone think government intervention (grants, sponsorships, etc.) led us to this mess?

If I am getting this wrong, tell me how this works, please.

Edit: I realized that malpractice suits also caused the prices to go up.

[Micael]

I've heard that private healthcare makes up 1/6th of the US economy. I'm starting to believe that Obama's objective is to destroy private enterprise and to simply grow government. He's taking over banks, automobile companies, and now healthcare. With a dem majority in both the house and senate, they may be able to ram something through on healthcare by this August - which we all know will give them plenty of time to review, adjust, and formulate a well thought out and cost effective plan to destroy 1/6th of the US economy. Pile that on top of the Cap and Trade bill and the tax increase that's sure to come, and we're in for fun times folks.... fun fun times.

[ToolkiT]

Originally Posted by Micael

I've heard that private healthcare makes up 1/6th of the US economy. I'm starting to believe that Obama's objective is to destroy private enterprise and to simply grow government. He's taking over banks, automobile companies, and now healthcare.

I think the auto industry and banks did a good job destroying their own enterprise.. the US gov. bailed them out of trouble... I guess in your POV it would be better to let them go bust than get bigger gov. involvement.

Just because Obama want to get involved in strugling industries/sectors and fix problems doesn't mean he want to kill capitalism

[jayhay312]

Here's something to think about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/ma...pagewanted=all

[clemgrad85]

Good discussion....as someone who deals with folks daily on their health insurance (I market plans), here is what I see:

1) As much as I hate folks being told to enroll for anything, this is a must. We must have 100% participation in health care. I see it way too often where a young health person refuses to enroll for their group plan because they don't want to pay $75 for their portion of the premium. But insurance companies need the young healthy participant to offset the unhealthy people.

2) Health insurance needs to be more about catastrophic coverage rather than day to day expenses. Imagine if your homeowners insurance had a co-pay for your toilet to be fixed....or another co-pay for a roof. Instead, most of us keep up our homes and find ways to pay for the new roof....the hole in the floor....the rotted wood....etc. So, you have a higher deductible (maybe $2k or 3k) health plan, with very few co-pay options, and your premium goes down (more money in your pocket for the prescriptions, etc). This at least keeps someone from losing their home or life savings if they have a $50K medical bill and only have $3 - $5,000 in exposure.

3) People must start taking some inititive and watch their expenses. I was told to go in for a $2100 test, after questioning it, I went to a specialist ($350) and turns out the test wasn't needed. Also, rather than taking the $85 prescription (simple BP) I asked for the generic, which is $5.65! People need to ask these questions!

And yes, tort reform could also help....but it's a combination of many things that could help without needing government intervention. Just my 2 cents (well, maybe more than 2 cents).

[Micael]

Originally Posted by ToolkiT

I think the auto industry and banks did a good job destroying their own enterprise.. the US gov. bailed them out of trouble... I guess in your POV it would be better to let them go bust than get bigger gov. involvement.

Just because Obama want to get involved in strugling industries/sectors and fix problems doesn't mean he want to kill capitalism

He may not "intend" it, but that's the result. capitalism and socialism clash.

And the US gov didn't bail them out. Generations of taxpayers did. It's like we've all bought invisible cars that we will be making payments on, for a while to come.

It's not simply to go bust vs increased government. In the past, other huge companies (that were "too big to fail") have gone through bankruptcy, restructured, and re-emerged stronger and profitable - without billions of our tax dollars. IBM is an example.

Nothing the government has ever touched has ever gotten leaner and more profitable because of it. Only in spite of it.