Healthcare

[ThatRobGuy]

Recently, I've been talking to my friend's dad who works for a major healthcare outfit here in Ohio that will remain nameless

The more I talk to him, the more I think the healthcare insurance industry doesn't need to exist.

He gave me a high level overview of their profit structure and I was angry by the end of the conversation (mainly because I have healthcare through the company he works for...)

The insurance company offers deals to healthcare providers if they agree to raise they're price to what the insurance company suggests (to create a necessity for their livelihood). If the provider refuses to comply, then they're taken out of the approved doctor's list for that insurance company. That happened to me when my doctor, that I went to for 7 years, and that was affiliated with the Cleveland Clinic (one of the top hospitals in the world) was removed from the list of physicians in my insurance network.

They're profit structure in a nutshell is breaking even on the gamble that you'll pay for it and rarely use it, and profiting by denying claims. So essentially they make money of denying you the services that you've paid monthly for. Pretty bold move for an industry that didn't need to exist in the first place.

The problem could be solved if we removed the healthcare insurance industry and let the government set the caps on what healthcare providers can charge...but that won't happen because everyone will cry "socialism" if it were suggested (and he told me the higher-ups at his company know that the majority will cry socialism, and chuckle about the "built-in lobbyists that we don't have to pay for") ...just something to think about.

 

[Mystman]

Well.. yeah.

We in the rich (and kinda civilized) West share the notion that no one should die from easily preventable diseases just because they can't pay for the treatment.

Easiest way to make that work? Just pay for all necesarry treatments with tax money.

Moronic way to make that not work? Inserting layers of managers, share-holders, Wall-Street gamblers, advertising agencies, etc etc etc..

Sure, providing a profit incentive makes some parts of the healthcare system more efficient. But all the added hassle undos all the gains.. and then some.

We used to have government provided healthcare... when you went to a doctor, you got the treatment the doctor prescribed. End of story.

Now, some wannabe-americans privatized parts of the system (maybe it had something to do with EU legislation? I dunno, it happened when I was pretty young), and when you go to the doctor you get a bill. And then you have to hope that you get the money back. And when your doctor says that you need more than X amount of treatment but your plan doesn't cover it, you're out of luck and need to pay.

Yeah. So basically a bunch of gamblers on Wall Streert (or Het Damrak in our case ) are getting rich of the backs of sick citizens. Highly unethical.

(edit: disclaimer: I don't actually know the details of our old healthcare system, but hey..)

 

[david_x]

You do realize what happens when governments switch to this new kind of healthcare, right?

MORE people die.

 

[allhart]

Exchange one monopoly for a Gov. monopoly.

 

[allhart]

Our forefathers that design the constitution needed health-care, but didn't expect taxation as to a right to health insurance. Insurance is a personal consumption, good or merchandise in a gamble/risk...for investors. There is no right to insurance! And Gov. is to regulate and legislate against monopoles. For the Gov. isn't supposed to be in the business of doing business

God doesn't even guaranty your health.

Forced health insurance is Unconstitutional....to be fair is to be constitutional...which is to give people the freedom to chose otherwise you force mandates. Which infringe on alienable rights. As to speak of religion. In the constitution you have the freedom OF and "FROM" religion. Which should be unalienable rights. Where as to force worship of God. Would force some others will upon you. Making you no longer free!

 

[Mystman]

You do realize what happens when governments switch to this new kind of healthcare, right?

MORE people die.

Source?

(If you list countries by life-expectancy, you'll see many with government-sponsored/paid healthcare in the top regions.. List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Sure, correlation doesn't mean causation, but as long as there is no evidence for the other position..)

 

[david_x]

Source?

(If you list countries by life-expectancy, you'll see many with government-sponsored/paid healthcare in the top regions.. List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Sure, correlation doesn't mean causation, but as long as there is no evidence for the other position..)

Japan has only four years up on the US, hardly compelling.

I also think it's really funny that the U.S. Virgin Islands and U.S. Puerto Rico have higher average life expectancy.

 

[Mystman]

Japan has only four years up on the US, hardly compelling.

I also think it's really funny that the U.S. Virgin Islands and U.S. Puerto Rico have higher average life expectancy.

Sure, but the claim was:

You do realize what happens when governments switch to this new kind of healthcare, right?

MORE people die."

So far, we have some 'anecdotal' evidence that government provided healthcare leads to higher life expectancy. What's the evidence for government provided healthcare leading to more deaths?

 

[david_x]

Sure, but the claim was:



So far, we have some 'anecdotal' evidence that government provided healthcare leads to higher life expectancy. What's the evidence for government provided evidence leading to more deaths?

I never mentioned the life expectancy at all.

 

[allhart]

Sure, but the claim was:

So far, we have some 'anecdotal' evidence that government provided healthcare leads to higher life expectancy. What's the evidence for government provided healthcare leading to more deaths?

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?filter=nfwww.youtube.com

 

[Mystman]

I never mentioned the life expectancy at all.

You do realize what happens when governments switch to this new kind of healthcare, right?

MORE people die.

"More people die" can be interpreted in a number of ways...

The first is that people will die that otherwise wouldn't have died. This is clearly nonsensical seeing that (besides Jesus) everyone dies.

The second is that more people are born, so that they may then die and add to the "more people die" statistic. Does government provided healthcare lead to more babies? I doubt it, but hey.

The third is...

...I give up.

Why not just provide evidence for the claim that you made instead of playing word games.

 

[allhart]

One of the freedoms we have in this country is to do as little as possible to just get by, but it shouldn't be at the expense of another! Even in reference to health insurance. I pay my cobra or premiums....while others chose to tell me I have plenty of money and ask me how I can't survive on this little money's. While others truly can't afford their toys, because if the bought their health insurance as a responsible person they couldn't afford the toy's they have.....? People need perspective, don't ya'think?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Our forefathers that design the constitution needed health-care, but didn't expect taxation as to a right to health insurance. Insurance is a personal consumption, good or merchandise in a gamble/risk...for investors. There is no right to insurance! And Gov. is to regulate and legislate against monopoles. For the Gov. isn't supposed to be in the business of doing business

We're forced to buy health insurance now (indirectly) because people know that in the off-chance they might lop their arm off, they don't have $200k laying around the house to cover that expense.

The average price of healthcare is inflating 4% faster per decade then the rest of the market (had a really good .pdf that had the overview of healthcare inflation, if I find it, I'll edit this post and add the web link)

At that pace, it makes it very difficult to keep up without giving in and purchasing their service.

I went the route of putting $6k in an HSA and that lowered my monthly premium down to $16/month, but not everyone has the ability to do that. However, if you can do it, that's the route to go. That way, your covering your own expenses for the small stuff that you can afford anyway like the $40 doctor visits in such and only keeping it around for the big stuff...and most importantly, minimizing the amount that you're donating to the insurance providers vacation fund.

Back to the matter of governments not regulating private industries, were you against it when they create laws that prevent 11 year olds from working in coal mines and getting injured? The government creates laws all of the time that impact the private sector. I think this is a case where we need just that or it will spiral out of control. Do we have to wait until they're charging $2,000/month for insurance premiums and $300 for a simple doctor visit before we realize that "we the people" don't have the resources to stop them?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Japan has only four years up on the US, hardly compelling.

I also think it's really funny that the U.S. Virgin Islands and U.S. Puerto Rico have higher average life expectancy.

One thing not to forget...

In the US, we're limited to one opinion on what's safe for consumption...and that's the "FDA approved" opinion.

There are several instances where the FDA has stepped in and deemed one product unsafe, while declaring a competitors product (made from the same ingredients) perfectly safe.

That's the very reason why homeopathic medicine isn't approved by any insurance companies even though the success rate is parallel to that of "conventional" medicine. It takes the big Pfizer's of the world out of the equation so they use their vast lobbying power to make sure that competitors aren't viewed as "safe" or "effective" by the masses...

 

[david_x]

"More people die" can be interpreted in a number of ways...

The first is that people will die that otherwise wouldn't have died. This is clearly nonsensical seeing that (besides Jesus) everyone dies.

The second is that more people are born, so that they may then die and add to the "more people die" statistic. Does government provided healthcare lead to more babies? I doubt it, but hey.

The third is...

...I give up.

Why not just provide evidence for the claim that you made instead of playing word games.

More people die from diseases that were prevented/treated in time before hand. I don't remember where I heard it though.

 

[katautumn]

The problem could be solved if we removed the healthcare insurance industry and let the government set the caps on what healthcare providers can charge...but that won't happen because everyone will cry "socialism" if it were suggested

It would be socialist medicine if the government were in total control over the health care system, owned all of the hospitals and doctor's offices and set pricing on health care services.

 

[trunks2k]

The problems with health care in the US are too numerous to list, but it has to be one of, if not the most convoluted systems in the world.

What makes it so hard to fix is the emotional aspect that's so tightly tied to it. For example, most people think that more care is better care. Studies show, however, that more care is NOT necessarily better care - there's a sorta bell curve to it. At a certain point, the chances of a complication in the care you receive exceeds the potential benefit. We can look at prostate cancer as an example of this. A simple blood test can detect the presence of prostate cancer. Most doctors suggest that all men over a certain age get the blood test. However, studies have shown that this isn't a good idea, as prostate cancer is often progresses so slowly that for many men even if they have it, it will never be an issue for them and that on average the complications due to the treatment/monitoring of it outweigh the overall benefit we see from detecting it so early. Instead of all men over a certain age doing the test, it would be better if whether or not to get the test was based on other risk factors so that the positive results are much more likely to come from people in whom the cancer will be a real problem and thus shift the cost vs benefit the other direction.

Of course, we still do the tests even though we know it's ultimately doing more harm than good. Why? Because, nobody wants to be that guy that has advanced prostate cancer and not catching it now means you're gonna die soon so even if a doctor doesn't want to give the test, the patient is likely to just find some way to get it anyways. Also, no doctor wants to be the one who advised against the test and then the patient dies later from prostate cancer and gets sued for not administering the test.

We saw the same sort of thing in HMOs in the 80s and 90s. The HMO's policies were created to reign in medical costs. Indeed, they did do that. They managed to actually reduce health care costs without an increase in death rates, etc (I've heard it said that actually overall health care improved). However, since it meant a stronger control on the type of care, it meant that people did not receive care that they thought they should have received. This got people angry. In some cases, people were denied some sort of care that could have saved their lives. That made people even angrier. So HMOs relaxed their controls to a significant extent and health care costs went up without a change in death rates, etc.

It's nearly impossible to find a happy medium between proper control of health care received and health care that is necessary. Individuals care little about the overall numbers. They only care about themselves. They're not going to care that expensive procedure X isn't paid for by whatever insurance they have because studies have shown that in terms of money and health the cost is too high. They're only going to care that expensive procedure X could possibly help them.

 

[JGG]

More people die from diseases that were prevented/treated in time before hand. I don't remember where I heard it though.

Uh-huh...there's a point to be made here somewhere, I can tell. I just can't seem to get my telepathy to work.

 

[david_x]

Uh-huh...there's a point to be made here somewhere, I can tell. I just can't seem to get my telepathy to work.

rofl.

 

[Verv]

Well.. yeah.

We in the rich (and kinda civilized) West share the notion that no one should die from easily preventable diseases just because they can't pay for the treatment.

Easiest way to make that work? Just pay for all necesarry treatments with tax money.

I disagree.

The easiest way to make it happen without defrauding the system is to only offer such free treatments to those who are demonstratably too poor to receive it.

Otherwise, there will be those who can afford insurance and who merely do not bother refusing to purchase it to get free treatment.

Reverting to socialism just because it seems easier makes me chuckle a bit.

I tis also asking the government to begin regulating every aspect of our life because now they sudenly have such a right to do so as they are paying our health bills.

Get ready for 'fat taxes' with your McDonalds.