(01-31-2019, 11:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2019, 04:10 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]So let me get this straight. The same government monopoly that was given tens of thousands of dollars and 13 years for my education failed to make me competent enough to understand my own healthcare. So your solution is to put the same government monopoly in charge of said healthcare decisions? In what world is this logical? Self interested people with the ability to hold providers accountable do better making their own decisions than unaccountable bureaucrats. The answer is more transparency and consumer education, not an even bigger curtain of the state that isn't governed by any real standard of honesty (Barrack Obama would have been jailed if her were a CEO of a private healthcare company.)
I also find it interesting that, more often than not, interventionists never actually take the time to evaluate the results of intervention. Every wart or freckle in a market result can be analyzed dissected and stated as a call to action. Then when the government intervenes, MAKES THINGS WORSE, we blame the market? Accreditation, Licensure, and the AMA have very little to do with a true free market economy and they account for hundreds of thousands of dollars blocking the entry of intellectual capital into medicine.
Economics is the rationing of scarce resources. On a fundamental level, the biggest driver in the cost of someone to cut into your chest and fix a heart valve is that there are only few people who know how to do it. There's only so much any "system" is going to mitigate that economic reality.
When you look at healthcare, like any good or service, the price is also a reflection of the amounts of resources that go into bringing that product to market. In this case we have: The actual cost of care, the cost of the Insurance bureaucracy, and the cost of the government bureaucracy. The basic fallacy with interventionists is that somehow dramatically increasing the size of the government bureaucracy is somehow going to reduce the cost of the underlying good or service which basically defies economics. At current, just so the administrators between the care provider, the state and the insurance companies can talk to each other people get full college degrees in billing and coding. It takes a decade in some cases to bring certain drugs to the market. Those are massive massive costs that are absorbed by the consumer that don't actually go into the pocket of care providers. If you really want to reduce costs then we have to mitigate those extra expenses.
What's the best way to do that? Let providers develop their own risk pools. There are lots of consierge practices and cooperatives that are set up where instead of paying a premium to a third party insurance company for the majority of your healthcare, you pay a monthly membership fee to the doctor and go when needed. This saves tons of money in cost of compliance alone. And we couple that with CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE for the cancer diagnosis or major illness that the average person can't pay for.
I think your comment about education is garbage. You don't seriously want primary and secondary schools to be tasked with bringing an average person's knowledge of medicine up to where they could compete with an expert, so why bring it up?
Yes, I think average people could rely on one expert to be their advocate against other experts. That's how class action lawsuits and many other things in law work.
I agree with you about the AMA and how needlessly difficult they make it to practice medicine. I agree that drives a lot of cost increase. But flsportgod hated that idea when I brought it up, said I wanted a "C student" to operate on me next time I had a problem.
I agree with you that steering more people towards catastrophic plans can help lower expenditures while minimally changing outcomes.
I don't agree that concierge care is going to improve anything for anyone besides an elite few.
I think your brain is contaminated with the "government as a bogeyman" meme and you need to work on that. The public school teacher is not the same type of person as the police officer, and neither of them are the same type of person as a judge or a city manager. Yet they all work for the government. Governments are really bad at certain tasks, but they are really good at other tasks. Experience around the world shows that governments help keep costs down and quality in health care. Just because the Fed's interventions in housing and education have been convoluted busts doesn't mean that health care would be.
All I want the government to do is
-make it so Americans pay prices for prescription drugs that are similar to what Canadians and Europeans pay
-make it so people only pay a certain % of their income in health care premiums and deductibles, and insurance can't turn anyone down
-make it so you can keep whatever health plan you're on when you change employers - the plan is tied just to you, not the employer
in that order.
Most of your objections are not really relevant to any of these three goals, and there are various ways the government could achieve them, whether by directly taking stuff over, starting new publicly owned operations to compete with what exists in the private sector today, offering vouchers, etc.
In regards to the red:
Lol, sure, if the outcomes that are minimally changing are being compared to the worst possible outcomes like needing open heart surgery.
Preventative care is cheap if people do it. Catastrophes are catastrophes by their very nature. They are always expensive and always bad. I think the problem here is maybe you mean 'like a car wreck' when you think of catastrophe. But as a medical professional, that is not what I think of. I think of a guy who hasn't seen his doc in 30 years, drinks several beers a day, smokes 2 packs, and is obese with un-diagnosised diabetes and hypertension who is rolling in my ER with chest pain. That guy is getting expensive surgery plus a 'million' dollar workup. That is a catatrophe health-wise, and that is what people do when they 'don't have to' see primary care.
So if I am an insurance company, even on my catastrophe plans, I really want my patients to actually see a primary care doctor. The problem is insurance wants to pay $42 for you to see your Family doc. So he schedules 4+ patients an hour to support the crazy amount of staff it takes him to see patients and to actually bill and get paid. Then the healthcare suffers cause how can he screen you really well in 5 minutes of room time (cause insurance requires 10 minutes worth of charting to justify paying you).
I understand the appeal of direct primary care, but it just doesn't seem to work in areas where the average wage is below 100k (i.e. outside the bay). People already pay for their insurance, and 90% will not pay more. It is where the country will head if we goto socialized medicine. Poor people will wait months to see a physician, and rich ones will pay for better access.
(01-31-2019, 12:35 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2019, 11:49 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What would that teach me?
The VA system has trouble hiring people because we have a shortage of doctors in general.
They also try to only treat stuff that was service-related. A lot of the frustrations come from that; a doc shouldn't care "why" you got hurt, he should just want to help you heal.
Sometimes wait times were long. Some people fraudulently altered their tracking of wait times.
None of this means they are doing a worse job than private providers.
Private providers won't see some of these people, and they don't have the same goals.
Literally, every single line you wrote here is wrong. You want to see what kind of cluster socialized medicine in America would look like, the VA is the poster child!
- Doctors don't hire on to the VA because of bureaucracy and image issues.
- The VA treats veterans with or without service related injury or illnesses.
- The VA is not only preventative care but also treatment. They care about the why, how, and fix action. Unfortunately, each of those has another bureaucratic level and specialist.
- Wait times are ALLWAYS long! One rare exception is if you happen to be lucky enough to live in a relatively low populated region. Wait times have gotten so bad that they implemented a program called CHOICE to allow members to seek out private providers.
- The VA is and has been doing a worse job than private providers. There have been numerous upper level firings and reorgs over the last few years. Still not working.
- Private providers will see "these" people. See the CHOICE program. In fact, most members will do everything possible to go to a private provider over the VA. I have friends that would rather pay out of pocket than go to the VA. And why wouldn't a treatment team whether VA or private have the same prevention and treatment goals?
Odd... when I scroll down I see you talking about 30% and 70% and 10%.
They task doctors with figuring out what percentage of your ability to work was extracted by Uncle Sam.
Everyone gets a number, nearly everybody is frustrated with their number, or someone else's number. When I ask veterans what they think of the VA, the conversation always seems to loop back to those numbers.
But when I try to describe this system you give me the old Luke Skywalker "everything you said is wrong" treatment.
A more universal healthcare system for the rest of us non-veterans would not dabble in things like these numbers.
and this is just one reason I think bringing up the VA when talking about these ideas is kind of a red herring.
We set up the VA to say thank you to the men and women who were either drafted or volunteered to fight on our behalf. we did not set it up to be an example of what state-run healthcare could look like for everyone else.
(02-02-2019, 09:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2019, 12:35 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Literally, every single line you wrote here is wrong. You want to see what kind of cluster socialized medicine in America would look like, the VA is the poster child!
- Doctors don't hire on to the VA because of bureaucracy and image issues.
- The VA treats veterans with or without service related injury or illnesses.
- The VA is not only preventative care but also treatment. They care about the why, how, and fix action. Unfortunately, each of those has another bureaucratic level and specialist.
- Wait times are ALLWAYS long! One rare exception is if you happen to be lucky enough to live in a relatively low populated region. Wait times have gotten so bad that they implemented a program called CHOICE to allow members to seek out private providers.
- The VA is and has been doing a worse job than private providers. There have been numerous upper level firings and reorgs over the last few years. Still not working.
- Private providers will see "these" people. See the CHOICE program. In fact, most members will do everything possible to go to a private provider over the VA. I have friends that would rather pay out of pocket than go to the VA. And why wouldn't a treatment team whether VA or private have the same prevention and treatment goals?
Odd... when I scroll down I see you talking about 30% and 70% and 10%.
They task doctors with figuring out what percentage of your ability to work was extracted by Uncle Sam.
Everyone gets a number, nearly everybody is frustrated with their number, or someone else's number. When I ask veterans what they think of the VA, the conversation always seems to loop back to those numbers.
But when I try to describe this system you give me the old Luke Skywalker "everything you said is wrong" treatment.
A more universal healthcare system for the rest of us non-veterans would not dabble in things like these numbers.
and this is just one reason I think bringing up the VA when talking about these ideas is kind of a red herring.
We set up the VA to say thank you to the men and women who were either drafted or volunteered to fight on our behalf. we did not set it up to be an example of what state-run healthcare could look like for everyone else.
Go back read you must (yoda).
I’m not sure what direction you are trying to go or what twist makes anything you said correct. FYI, none of those disability ratings came from anything I wrote. Please enlighten me where disability pay was being discussed within the topic of healthcare?
And [BLEEP] on your VA is a thank you statement! It was established to provide a level of benefits and care oversight that goes back to the Continental Congress days. The VHA has been the independent goverment body tasked with veteran universal healthcare as contracted per enlistment or commission. And yes, it has in fact been studied as a model for national healthcare.
Read if you have time:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2089116/
(02-02-2019, 09:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2019, 12:35 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Literally, every single line you wrote here is wrong. You want to see what kind of cluster socialized medicine in America would look like, the VA is the poster child!
- Doctors don't hire on to the VA because of bureaucracy and image issues.
- The VA treats veterans with or without service related injury or illnesses.
- The VA is not only preventative care but also treatment. They care about the why, how, and fix action. Unfortunately, each of those has another bureaucratic level and specialist.
- Wait times are ALLWAYS long! One rare exception is if you happen to be lucky enough to live in a relatively low populated region. Wait times have gotten so bad that they implemented a program called CHOICE to allow members to seek out private providers.
- The VA is and has been doing a worse job than private providers. There have been numerous upper level firings and reorgs over the last few years. Still not working.
- Private providers will see "these" people. See the CHOICE program. In fact, most members will do everything possible to go to a private provider over the VA. I have friends that would rather pay out of pocket than go to the VA. And why wouldn't a treatment team whether VA or private have the same prevention and treatment goals?
Odd... when I scroll down I see you talking about 30% and 70% and 10%.
They task doctors with figuring out what percentage of your ability to work was extracted by Uncle Sam.
Everyone gets a number, nearly everybody is frustrated with their number, or someone else's number. When I ask veterans what they think of the VA, the conversation always seems to loop back to those numbers.
But when I try to describe this system you give me the old Luke Skywalker "everything you said is wrong" treatment.
A more universal healthcare system for the rest of us non-veterans would not dabble in things like these numbers.
and this is just one reason I think bringing up the VA when talking about these ideas is kind of a red herring.
We set up the VA to say thank you to the men and women who were either drafted or volunteered to fight on our behalf. we did not set it up to be an example of what state-run healthcare could look like for everyone else.
Who needs the nutmeg now brother?
(02-02-2019, 11:16 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2019, 09:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Odd... when I scroll down I see you talking about 30% and 70% and 10%.
They task doctors with figuring out what percentage of your ability to work was extracted by Uncle Sam.
Everyone gets a number, nearly everybody is frustrated with their number, or someone else's number. When I ask veterans what they think of the VA, the conversation always seems to loop back to those numbers.
But when I try to describe this system you give me the old Luke Skywalker "everything you said is wrong" treatment.
A more universal healthcare system for the rest of us non-veterans would not dabble in things like these numbers.
and this is just one reason I think bringing up the VA when talking about these ideas is kind of a red herring.
We set up the VA to say thank you to the men and women who were either drafted or volunteered to fight on our behalf. we did not set it up to be an example of what state-run healthcare could look like for everyone else.
Go back read you must (yoda).
I’m not sure what direction you are trying to go or what twist makes anything you said correct. FYI, none of those disability ratings came from anything I wrote. Please enlighten me where disability pay was being discussed within the topic of healthcare?
And [BLEEP] on your VA is a thank you statement! It was established to provide a level of benefits and care oversight that goes back to the Continental Congress days. The VHA has been the independent goverment body tasked with veteran universal healthcare as contracted per enlistment or commission. And yes, it has in fact been studied as a model for national healthcare.
Read if you have time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2089116/
Sure. The article you link to discusses that the VA could be a model for national health care.
Not that it was intended to be so.
Not that it must be so.
Just that it could be.
And, oh by the way, the article gives a lot of compliments to the VA. The article notes that the VA is outperforming private hospitals in many measurable outcomes.
the first few people who brought up the VA on this thread did so derisively. Sounds like the VA's actual performance is a mixed bag at worst.
(02-03-2019, 09:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2019, 11:16 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Go back read you must (yoda).
I’m not sure what direction you are trying to go or what twist makes anything you said correct. FYI, none of those disability ratings came from anything I wrote. Please enlighten me where disability pay was being discussed within the topic of healthcare?
And [BLEEP] on your VA is a thank you statement! It was established to provide a level of benefits and care oversight that goes back to the Continental Congress days. The VHA has been the independent goverment body tasked with veteran universal healthcare as contracted per enlistment or commission. And yes, it has in fact been studied as a model for national healthcare.
Read if you have time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2089116/
Sure. The article you link to discusses that the VA could be a model for national health care.
Not that it was intended to be so.
Not that it must be so.
Just that it could be.
Sure, we could use the CMS or ACHA models instead. You know, the ones good docs wont participate in? National healthcare provided by our cluster [BLEEP] politicians is dead in the womb.
(02-03-2019, 09:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2019, 11:16 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Go back read you must (yoda).
I’m not sure what direction you are trying to go or what twist makes anything you said correct. FYI, none of those disability ratings came from anything I wrote. Please enlighten me where disability pay was being discussed within the topic of healthcare?
And [BLEEP] on your VA is a thank you statement! It was established to provide a level of benefits and care oversight that goes back to the Continental Congress days. The VHA has been the independent goverment body tasked with veteran universal healthcare as contracted per enlistment or commission. And yes, it has in fact been studied as a model for national healthcare.
Read if you have time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2089116/
Sure. The article you link to discusses that the VA could be a model for national health care.
Not that it was intended to be so.
Not that it must be so.
Just that it could be.
And, oh by the way, the article gives a lot of compliments to the VA. The article notes that the VA is outperforming private hospitals in many measurable outcomes.
the first few people who brought up the VA on this thread did so derisively. Sounds like the VA's actual performance is a mixed bag at worst.
Nobody on here but YOU alluded to the fact that it is THE model. It was cited by me and others as the lone example of what universal care for all in America would/could be like. Canadas is similar.
Well yes, it is one unbiased medical opinion written in 2007. Even though it doesn’t go through every detail, it mirrors what has been said here. Some good, some bad, inconsistencies, not always cheaper. Somewhere along the line you’ll need to do your own research instead of talking out your [BLEEP] and presenting as fact. The VA has had some real issues and it is correcting those issues but at increased costs and heavy congressional pressure. The short term answer has been to just throw money at it but that won’t work long term. (Another major conflict may put it over the top). Tried it with that failure ACA as well. Can you image doing that with Medicare? ...oh wait they are and that budget has doubled in last ten years. Outpacing defense. Psshh, people complain about debt/deficit now! Sure, let’s give it to everyone and exacerbate all the know issues.
Those people were discussing the inconsistency of disability ratings per service connected disabilities. Not level of healthcare. Although those ratings can figure in to costs out of pocket. Nothing like the goverment putting value on your mind and body like a used car salesman! But they are doing us a solid and only as a thank you. As you see, the VA can’t even be consistent with disability ratings.
Government run healthcare isn't a model for government run healthcare. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Medicaid is fine, Medicare is solvent and all veterans r happy! When are ubguys going to man up & thank our benevolent overseers for all the good intentions they have.
Results are just an artificial construct created by racist sexist homophobic good time rock and rollers to opress the masses and save them from the greatest economic engine man has ever seen.
(02-03-2019, 10:19 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Government run healthcare isn't a model for government run healthcare. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Medicaid is fine, Medicare is solvent and all veterans r happy! When are ubguys going to man up & thank our benevolent overseers for all the good intentions they have.
Results are just an artificial construct created by racist sexist homophobic good time rock and rollers to opress the masses and save them from the greatest economic engine man has ever seen.
You and your cis humanistic normative prejudicial privilege.
(01-30-2019, 08:03 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2019, 02:49 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I'm being compared to a broken down car. Awesome.
Hey, my house burned down yesterday, so I need some home owners insurance.
Hey, I was diagnosed with cancer yesterday, I need to add a rider to my health insurance policy.
Hey, I died yesterday, I need some term life insurance.
The subject doesn't change the logic and it's not personal.
Most policies have a certain amount of time from the day you add something to it until you can use it, however, once diagnosed with cancer,diabetes,and.such, it becomes a pre-existing condition. Without the elimination of insurance companies right to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and your company changes health care providers the following year,you would not be able to pick up health care. Simply put, if health insurance providers could choose not to provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, they certainly would and many people would go with out their meds and die. You couldn't save enough in a HSA to pay for diabetic meds or supplies or any other chronic disease. Try having to pay for dialysis without health care or through a HSA. My wife has two kinds of arthritis. She takes one shot a week that cost $1k each. If insurance companies could deny her every time the company changes health insurance providers, she wouldn't get her shots
(02-04-2019, 02:52 AM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (01-30-2019, 08:03 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, my house burned down yesterday, so I need some home owners insurance.
Hey, I was diagnosed with cancer yesterday, I need to add a rider to my health insurance policy.
Hey, I died yesterday, I need some term life insurance.
The subject doesn't change the logic and it's not personal.
Most policies have a certain amount of time from the day you add something to it until you can use it, however, once diagnosed with cancer,diabetes,and.such, it becomes a pre-existing condition. Without the elimination of insurance companies right to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and your company changes health care providers the following year,you would not be able to pick up health care. Simply put, if health insurance providers could choose not to provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, they certainly would and many people would go with out their meds and die. You couldn't save enough in a HSA to pay for diabetic meds or supplies or any other chronic disease. Try having to pay for dialysis without health care or through a HSA. My wife has two kinds of arthritis. She takes one shot a week that cost $1k each. If insurance companies could deny her every time the company changes health insurance providers, she wouldn't get her shots
With respect, it just doesn't work that way. If you completely eliminate underwriting then the actuarial cost of insurance skyrockets.
Insurance should never have been tied to employment anyway. That's a symptom of the last time govt. Tried to institute price controls. Most if not all group plans even b4 the aca didn't reject pre-conditions they just had a waiting period. Why? Insurance companies actually competed for the group business.
We need a separate track for risk management for the chronically ill, we need to make premiums and HSA contributions tax deductible, we need to allow more permanent group and association plans. We need to incentivise and allow cooperative & concierge practices to debundle chronic/morbid risk from primary healthcare.
(02-04-2019, 07:53 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 02:52 AM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]Most policies have a certain amount of time from the day you add something to it until you can use it, however, once diagnosed with cancer,diabetes,and.such, it becomes a pre-existing condition. Without the elimination of insurance companies right to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and your company changes health care providers the following year,you would not be able to pick up health care. Simply put, if health insurance providers could choose not to provide health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, they certainly would and many people would go with out their meds and die. You couldn't save enough in a HSA to pay for diabetic meds or supplies or any other chronic disease. Try having to pay for dialysis without health care or through a HSA. My wife has two kinds of arthritis. She takes one shot a week that cost $1k each. If insurance companies could deny her every time the company changes health insurance providers, she wouldn't get her shots
With respect, it just doesn't work that way. If you completely eliminate underwriting then the actuarial cost of insurance skyrockets.
Insurance should never have been tied to employment anyway. That's a symptom of the last time govt. Tried to institute price controls. Most if not all group plans even b4 the aca didn't reject pre-conditions they just had a waiting period. Why? Insurance companies actually competed for the group business.
We need a separate track for risk management for the chronically ill, we need to make premiums and HSA contributions tax deductible, we need to allow more permanent group and association plans. We need to incentivise and allow cooperative & concierge practices to debundle chronic/morbid risk from primary healthcare.
Agree that health care shouldnt be tied to employer. That began as a benefit to attract workers,now it's a mandate. Also disagree with most of your last paragraph other than tax deductible. The biggest problem to make health care work in the free market but it never work the way it is. Eleventy six years ago I did a report on health care companies and found that there is five or six companies that .own the majority of health care providers with the same BOD from each of the big five or six sitting on the BOD of all of them. So the majority stock holders of the companies owning the majority of health care companies are/we're the same people then and probably still are. The free market can't work that way
(02-04-2019, 10:33 AM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 07:53 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]With respect, it just doesn't work that way. If you completely eliminate underwriting then the actuarial cost of insurance skyrockets.
Insurance should never have been tied to employment anyway. That's a symptom of the last time govt. Tried to institute price controls. Most if not all group plans even b4 the aca didn't reject pre-conditions they just had a waiting period. Why? Insurance companies actually competed for the group business.
We need a separate track for risk management for the chronically ill, we need to make premiums and HSA contributions tax deductible, we need to allow more permanent group and association plans. We need to incentivise and allow cooperative & concierge practices to debundle chronic/morbid risk from primary healthcare.
Agree that health care shouldnt be tied to employer. That began as a benefit to attract workers,now it's a mandate. Also disagree with most of your last paragraph other than tax deductible. The biggest problem to make health care work in the free market but it never work the way it is. Eleventy six years ago I did a report on health care companies and found that there is five or six companies that .own the majority of health care providers with the same BOD from each of the big five or six sitting on the BOD of all of them. So the majority stock holders of the companies owning the majority of health care companies are/we're the same people then and probably still are. The free market can't work that way
No, the market is inherently more efficient than government run monopoly period. Full stop. What u just described is scarcity. The antidote to scarcity is more innovation and capital to meet co Sumer needs, not reducing providers even further.
(02-04-2019, 12:46 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 10:33 AM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]Agree that health care shouldnt be tied to employer. That began as a benefit to attract workers,now it's a mandate. Also disagree with most of your last paragraph other than tax deductible. The biggest problem to make health care work in the free market but it never work the way it is. Eleventy six years ago I did a report on health care companies and found that there is five or six companies that .own the majority of health care providers with the same BOD from each of the big five or six sitting on the BOD of all of them. So the majority stock holders of the companies owning the majority of health care companies are/we're the same people then and probably still are. The free market can't work that way
No, the market is inherently more efficient than government run monopoly period. Full stop. What u just described is scarcity. The antidote to scarcity is more innovation and capital to meet co Sumer needs, not reducing providers even further.
Scarcity is not the right word.
what wrong_box described is a lack of competition.
If a lack of competition is diagnosed, the government should study what the barriers of entry are. if the barriers to entry are high, the government should begin legal procedures to break up the big players.
Of course many of our libertarian friends have a problem with the government doing this.
(02-04-2019, 12:46 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 10:33 AM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]Agree that health care shouldnt be tied to employer. That began as a benefit to attract workers,now it's a mandate. Also disagree with most of your last paragraph other than tax deductible. The biggest problem to make health care work in the free market but it never work the way it is. Eleventy six years ago I did a report on health care companies and found that there is five or six companies that .own the majority of health care providers with the same BOD from each of the big five or six sitting on the BOD of all of them. So the majority stock holders of the companies owning the majority of health care companies are/we're the same people then and probably still are. The free market can't work that way
No, the market is inherently more efficient than government run monopoly period. Full stop. What u just described is scarcity. The antidote to scarcity is more innovation and capital to meet co Sumer needs, not reducing providers even further.
Don't end providers end the ability of five or six companies to control the majority of all health care
(02-04-2019, 01:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 12:46 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]No, the market is inherently more efficient than government run monopoly period. Full stop. What u just described is scarcity. The antidote to scarcity is more innovation and capital to meet co Sumer needs, not reducing providers even further.
Scarcity is not the right word.
what wrong_box described is a lack of competition.
If a lack of competition is diagnosed, the government should study what the barriers of entry are. if the barriers to entry are high, the government should begin legal procedures to break up the big players.
Of course many of our libertarian friends have a problem with the government doing this.
This is what I was getting at
(02-04-2019, 01:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 12:46 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]No, the market is inherently more efficient than government run monopoly period. Full stop. What u just described is scarcity. The antidote to scarcity is more innovation and capital to meet co Sumer needs, not reducing providers even further.
Scarcity is not the right word.
what wrong_box described is a lack of competition.
If a lack of competition is diagnosed, the government should study what the barriers of entry are. if the barriers to entry are high, the government should begin legal procedures to break up the big players.
Of course many of our libertarian friends have a problem with the government doing this.
Almost.... But you're getting closer
(02-04-2019, 02:08 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 01:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Scarcity is not the right word.
what wrong_box described is a lack of competition.
If a lack of competition is diagnosed, the government should study what the barriers of entry are. if the barriers to entry are high, the government should begin legal procedures to break up the big players.
Of course many of our libertarian friends have a problem with the government doing this.
Almost.... But you're getting closer
You're saying that the government itself is the main barrier to entry in nearly all cases? I was making a point about big business in general. would you like to discuss whether or not I am right, with regard to banks, phone companies, airlines, and railroads, or would you like to confine the discussion to healthcare?
(02-04-2019, 09:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 02:08 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Almost.... But you're getting closer
You're saying that the government itself is the main barrier to entry in nearly all cases? I was making a point about big business in general. would you like to discuss whether or not I am right, with regard to banks, phone companies, airlines, and railroads, or would you like to confine the discussion to healthcare?
Pretty much. That's why big business LOVES big government. In the case of healthcare how many billionaires and hedge funds have been launching insurance start ups since we just passed 2k pages of regulations in the ACA?
(02-05-2019, 01:26 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-04-2019, 09:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You're saying that the government itself is the main barrier to entry in nearly all cases? I was making a point about big business in general. would you like to discuss whether or not I am right, with regard to banks, phone companies, airlines, and railroads, or would you like to confine the discussion to healthcare?
Pretty much. That's why big business LOVES big government. In the case of healthcare how many billionaires and hedge funds have been launching insurance start ups since we just passed 2k pages of regulations in the ACA?
Say you're right.
Suppose we agree that
1) there are not enough competing players in health insurance right now (Aetna, Blue, Cigna, Humana, UHC - 5 players is not enough?)
2) more competition in health insurance is all we need
3) we had more competition before the ACA
4) ACA regulations are reducing the number of competitive players in health insurance.
None of these things are actually in evidence, but leave that aside.
We would still have at least two ways to address that. (A) repeal the regulations, (B) break up the big players in an antitrust process.
(A) leaves us wondering if people would be, as they were before, left out in the cold with pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps.
(B) leaves us with no concerns about patient wellbeing.
We should focus on B, right?
One of the biggest problems of the cost of health care is big pharma. Big pharma charges ridiculous prices on many drugs. As mentioned earlier, my wife has two kinds of arthritis and takes a shot once a week. Each shot costs $1k but it only costs a few bucks to make it. They charge that much because they can. I'm all for businesses to make as much as they can, but there comes a point when making a profit becomes fleecing and price gouging . I'm not big on government putting their fat fingers in business, but big pharma has proved they can't police themselves, and charge ungodly prices to consumers out of pure greed, and therefore, need to be regulated