Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 9541 - 9560 of total 9765 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 6, 2011 - 01:13am PT
Nearly 20% (or about $1 Trillion dollars) per year is spent by the Federal Government on Medicare and Medicaid, this pushes prices up higher than they normally would be. So to some extent, many health care jobs are Government jobs.

If government workers spend money at Goldman Sachs, does that make Goldman Sachs jobs government jobs? Come on!

Now Lois will tell you that no insurance company pays for health care at a lower rate than medicare and Medicaid. Some places won't even take it. That's not driving prices up, and it's also protecting the industry from clients who might otherwise not be able to pay

Do you think if the Government didn't have Medicare and Medicaid that those people would just forget their medical problems and crawl under a rock and die? thus reducing prices?

Peace

Karl
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Oct 6, 2011 - 01:34am PT
Beryllium is the fourth element. Why is it suddenly so important?
corniss chopper

climber
breaking the speed of gravity
Oct 6, 2011 - 01:41am PT

at least Obama has not outlawed climbing yet

CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 02:21am PT
If government workers spend money at Goldman Sachs, does that make Goldman Sachs jobs government jobs? Come on!

Haven't you heard of Government Sachs?
CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 02:26am PT
That's not driving prices up, and it's also protecting the industry from clients who might otherwise not be able to pay

protecting the industry from clients who might otherwise not be able to pay = driving prices up

You can't subsidize an industry without driving prices up. Look at housing, and post secondary education. Anywhere the Government chooses to throw money, prices go up.

Medicare may not pay for a lot at the individual level, but 1 Trillion dollars is nothing to sneeze at.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 6, 2011 - 02:47am PT
protecting the industry from clients who might otherwise not be able to pay = driving prices up

So you're saying that if those old people went to the hospital for their care, and then stiffed the hospital on their bill cause they couldn't pay or died, then medical care would be cheaper?

That's crap and even if it were true, so what? Would your really want to live in such a country?

Fie on people who will let others rot and die to preserve every inch of their privilege and advantage. (I'm not saying you are one of them)

And double fie on those who don't blink an eye at the cost of killing and war but won't pay taxes for it but constantly blink their eyes at the cost of feeding the real poor and giving medical care to the old and disabled. What kind of hearts do people like that have?

really!!??

and ALL this medical care stuff is the few jobs left that pay decent for Americans. Do we really want to turn this place into Mexico with a few rich and everybody else poor.

Those fearful ones who wish to pay for war above all other things should instead fear a country where the masses are poor and without a safety net because the final act of a cornered animal is to attack

If this country goes down the tubes or becomes sketchy, it won't be because of Islam, it will be our own internal stench

The real insurance and benefit for welfare for the poor and aged in this country is to keep them asleep and not changing the rigged system. When you get so cheap that even this modest cost is too much, the pendulum has swung to its far end and will swing back with maximum velocity.

Peace

Karl
CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 03:26am PT
Aside from Inventing the Internet, being the subject of "Love Story", and saving the World from Global Warming, Joe has informed me that Renaissance Man Al Gore was the reason Apple stock went from $10 to $400, rather than Steve Jobs:

With such brilliant minds as Al Gore on the Board of Directors, whose sound judgement and intelligence obviously helped steer Apple to World's Most Valuable Company status, Apple will continue to thrive

CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 03:37am PT
So you're saying that if those old people went to the hospital for their care, and then stiffed the hospital on their bill cause they couldn't pay or died, then medical care would be cheaper?

That's crap and even if it were true, so what? Would your really want to live in such a country?

It does not make sense to you because you are looking at it in Black and White - but in reality there is a spectrum of people with different incomes, and giving some of these people money to pay for procedures does make prices go up, by simple supply and demand.

I am not saying I would want to live in a country that doesn't give medical care to the poor, but that was not my point. In our system someone is always going to be squeezed out of medical care, because it is a finite resource. If we give it to the poor (like we do) then the middle class can't afford it.

I think we have a sh1tty system. Either completely privatizing it or completely socializing it would be better. I remember when I was a kid doctor visits were very affordable, and not many people had insurance, medicare, etc. Doctors even made house calls.
Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
Oct 6, 2011 - 04:42am PT
where can i buy an american made power tool?

besides smith and wesson?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 6, 2011 - 10:18am PT
Crack wrote

I
t does not make sense to you because you are looking at it in Black and White - but in reality there is a spectrum of people with different incomes, and giving some of these people money to pay for procedures does make prices go up, by simple supply and demand.

How about we increase supply by subsidizing more medical schools or helping more folks get into and through medical school if they work for Charitable hospitals or county clinics for some time? It's silly to suggest people deny themselves medical care due to lack of funds. Medical already limits what procedures and meds they will pay for.

I am not saying I would want to live in a country that doesn't give medical care to the poor, but that was not my point. In our system someone is always going to be squeezed out of medical care, because it is a finite resource. If we give it to the poor (like we do) then the middle class can't afford it.


This is clearly not true. In places that have socialized medicine and an economy that even approaches ours, they manage to do their medical care cheaper and have better results. This has been well studied. Medical care is a resource that can be expanded to provide for ample supply. The sun is also a limited resource and water too but we don't need people to go thirsty to get by.

I think we have a sh1tty system. Either completely privatizing it or completely socializing it would be better. I remember when I was a kid doctor visits were very affordable, and not many people had insurance, medicare, etc. Doctors even made house calls.

No if you want to argue that Insurance makes medical care expensive, YES! First the profit and administration of insurance adds 20% to the whole thing and the fact that people aren't spending their own money keeps them, and mostly keeps the medical industry, from economizing as much as they could. Why not order some extra tests and keep this person in a hospital bed instead of going home? Extra money is made and butts are covered.

But I more blame the medical field for this. They almost NEVER can tell you what something will cost, never suggest ways to cut things in a visit to save money, and so on. If I knew I would have to pay back every penny of my last emergency room visit, I would have spent the night in the car in the parking lot on vicodin instead of on a bed on morphine. Is that how we want our medical care to have to work though?

Peace

Karl
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 01:32pm PT
But I more blame the medical field for this. They almost NEVER can tell you what something will cost, never suggest ways to cut things in a visit to save money, and so on. If I knew I would have to pay back every penny of my last emergency room visit, I would have spent the night in the car in the parking lot on vicodin instead of on a bed on morphine. Is that how we want our medical care to have to work though?

Karl,

I interpret your comments, including that quoted above, as acknowledging the disconnect between patient care decisions and cost to the patient. If so, we agree on the problem, though probably not on its source.

First, current tort law does not take cost of a procedure into account. If the health care provider could have done something that might have ameliorated the patient's condition, that failure to do so could constitute negligence or worse. It doesn't matter that a finder of fact may ultimately decide that the provider did nothing wrong. The fact that the issue is litigable creates an incentive for the provider to take the action, regardless of its cost-effectiveness.

This gets reinforced in our current health care system, where the price the patient pays fails to reflect the cost of the procedure. In that instance, both the provider and the patient have no incentive to consider cost and it should not surprise you that the provider does not discuss cost.

Until tort law changes to remove the extra incentive to add tests and/or treatments that may or may not be cost-effective, and until the patient bears a sufficient price for choosing expensive procedures, that disconnect will create perverse incentives regarding health care costs.

In particular, the insurance model for "routine maintenance" for health care doesn't fit. We don't buy insurance that makes our mortgage payments unconditionally, because it would be cheaper to make those payments directly, given that we have to do so anyway. We may rationally choose, however, to buy insurance that pays the mortgage if, for example, we die, or we're hurt and miss work (can you say Aflak?).

Our current health insurance model, in contrast, is like buying insurance that pays the mortgage every month for everybody covered -- and it pays more if you buy a bigger house, for no extra cost to the insured. What is likely to happen to total mortgage payments under this model? Medical insurance covering catastrophic costs makes sense. Medical coverage that pays for what all of us will need anyway makes no economic sense.

John
CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 02:33pm PT
The Democrats pre-election "Hail mary" assault on banks:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204524604576611092563945136.html

The 2009 CARD Act made it more difficult for credit-card issuers to raise rates and charge fees. New Federal Reserve regulations limited overdraft charges. Then came the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which included a provision authored by Mr. Durbin that cut the "swipe fees" that debit-card issuers can charge merchants like Wal-Mart to process transactions.

Don't ask what any of this has to do with preventing the next financial crisis. The new rules and laws achieved Washington's goal of cutting bank revenues, by more than $15 billion per year. But it costs money to provide checking services and electronic payment networks, and the political class is now stunned that banks would seek new ways to profitably serve customers.


The people running this Country truly are idiots.
CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 02:37pm PT
FortMental,

You're having some serious mental issues over LEB.

Don't worry, I doubt anyone even sees his posts anymore. Sort of like those mortgage refi ads in the corner of your Yahoo mail page.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 6, 2011 - 03:33pm PT
If I may amplify on your point, Lois, in California, anything less than total victory becaomes part of your professional record. Thus, if a doctor were to settle a malpractice suit for, say, $10,000.00, which is far less than either cost of defense or nuisance value, that settlement would still go on the doctor's permanent professional record. This creates the perverse incentive here to litigate every medical malpractice claim, because the insured provider has nothing to lose by litigation, and nothing to gain (and a certainty to lose) by settling.

From an insurance company standpoint, there is nothing positive about a defense verdict except that it didn't cost as much as a plaintiff's one. The insurance company will still be out hundreds of thousands of dollars in a typical suit.

My point is not that malpractice premiums are a huge part of our national medical expenses. My understanding is that they are not. What I am saying is that the threat of suit causes health care professionals to order excessive tests and treatments because tort law, not contract law, governs this area.

John
corniss chopper

climber
breaking the speed of gravity
Oct 6, 2011 - 05:51pm PT
Most of us knew this guy was not up to the job requirements.


dirtbag

climber
Oct 6, 2011 - 10:38pm PT
I'll bet you a thousand dollars the image I'm posting below is waaaaaaay better than anything KKKorniss posts.











































































































Degaine

climber
Oct 7, 2011 - 03:57am PT
fattrad and JE,

You keep using the word "free" when it comes to health care, but anyone who knows anything about health care systems, especially single payer, never uses the word free.

Do you know why?

Because everyone in countries like France, Germany, Japan, etc., knows that it is not free. Everyone pays into the system and everyone benefits.

In each of these three countries the per capita cost of health care is at least half that of the per capita cost in the US (if not one-third) and everyone in those countries is covered.

To top it off these countries have better overall outcomes than in the US.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 7, 2011 - 08:40am PT
obamanomics: let's spend 2.7% of the gdp to get back 2.0%

"At a White House press conference on Thursday, President Barack Obama said the legislation he has proposed to create jobs could “grow the economy as much as 2 percent.” However, the White House estimates that the plan itself will cost $447 billion — or 2.97 percent of the 2011 GDP of $15.012 trillion that is currently projected by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. (See chart: GDP Chart from BEA.xls.)"


ok, i admit, it's, technically, better than the first porkulus


dirtbag

climber
Oct 7, 2011 - 09:30am PT
The first stimulus produced 3 million jobs.

What is the republicans' plan?
Degaine

climber
Oct 7, 2011 - 09:42am PT
dirtbag wrote:
What is the republicans' plan?

To try to make sure that Obama is not reelected in 2012. Mitch McConnell said on TV that Obama’s defeat is their top priority.

Not the economy.
Not jobs.
Not foreign policy.
Not health care.
Not the deficit.

What plan? No plan.
Messages 9541 - 9560 of total 9765 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta