Quote:Still waiting for Biff's paper. I mean we basically wrote it for him, shouldn't we get the final results... He better have gotten an A (unless he route copied my terrible grammar in which case he gets a C).
Good stuff. I will give my opinion after I get back from the dentist's this afternoon. For a bit of a teaser, though, I will say this: So far I have read some pretty good posts, but I don't recall any that were in the same spirit as what I plan on addressing. Think benchmarks. Second, I think resolving our health care mess is and should be the number one issue our government addresses over the next two years. To me the proportional airtime in the media and political circles about all other politics vs. healthcare is pretty amazingly bad. Of course I think all mass media is about worthless as [BLEEP] on a boar hog, so maybe that shouldn't be too surprising, but I digress. To put it in some kind of perspective, a great deal of airtime goes to Trump's travel order. I agree, terrorism is not good, and although we haven't had many big attacks, 9/11 was not a good day. Furthermore, the U.S. response was costly, with the entire war cost about 2 trillion dollars. However we could fund all of that in just the overage between what we pay for health care vs the next most expensive country over a two year period. I have also read that the number of deaths due to our current system ranges anywhere from 5 to 10 times the losses of 9/11 .. every year. So yeah, I think it's kind of a big deal.
Quote:Private healthcare is better than public healthcare no?
If you are asking me would I prefer a system like the U.S. versus Great Britain, for the cost I would take Great Britain hands down. But heck, with what we spend we could fund Great Britain and France I think they were the number one rated system worldwide) per capita. So again, not sure what you are getting at.
Quote:If you are asking me would I prefer a system like the U.S. versus Great Britain, for the cost I would take Great Britain hands down. But heck, with what we spend we could fund Great Britain and France I think they were the number one rated system worldwide) per capita. So again, not sure what you are getting at.
No I'm not asking that at all. Solid snake said for profit healthcare shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying private healthcare is for profit and works very well all over the world.
Quote:No I'm not asking that at all. Solid snake said for profit healthcare shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying private healthcare is for profit and works very well all over the world.
Ahh, got it. Agree totally. I have no problem with private doctors and private hospitals, and even private insurance (with certain caveats). I will put more out there after my appointment in a bit, but basically I think the key is the government establishing price levels as is done in all those other countries. There are a few other lesser issues such as training costs for healthcare professionals and malpractice, but they are minor compared to the price controls.
Quote:Ahh, got it. Agree totally. I have no problem with private doctors and private hospitals, and even private insurance (with certain caveats). I will put more out there after my appointment in a bit, but basically I think the key is the government establishing price levels as is done in all those other countries. There are a few other lesser issues such as training costs for healthcare professionals and malpractice, but they are minor compared to the price controls.
Price controls CREATED this mess!
Quote:No I'm not asking that at all. Solid snake said for profit healthcare shouldn't be allowed. I'm saying private healthcare is for profit and works very well all over the world.
I was trolling. I'm okay with private insurance. I don't see what's wrong with the German or Australian model. You can have universal health care and a private system.
Quote:I was trolling. I'm okay with private insurance. I don't see what's wrong with the German or Australian model. You can have universal health care and a private system.
So you believe in for profit healthcare?
Quote:So you believe in for profit healthcare?
Yes but it shouldn't be the end all be all. It should be an option.
Quote:Price controls CREATED this mess!
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Basically every other industrialized democracy in the world controls costs through the government setting guidelines on how much will be charged for services. If there are exceptions, feel free to educate me. But since it seems to me the U.S. has a worse cost-to-value ratio than all of those other countries, what do you mean?
Quote:I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Basically every other industrialized democracy in the world controls costs through the government setting guidelines on how much will be charged for services. If there are exceptions, feel free to educate me. But since it seems to me the U.S. has a worse cost-to-value ratio than all of those other countries, what do you mean?
Our government does that too. They also ration care just as the others do.
Quote:Yes but it shouldn't be the end all be all. It should be an option.
So I can pay for mine and yours too.? What a deal! Where do I sign???
Quote:So I can pay for mine and yours too.? What a deal! Where do I sign???
So you want a pay as you go tax system? Keep the poor people inside as they haven't paid for the roads/walkways.
Quote:So you want a pay as you go tax system? Keep the poor people inside as they haven't paid for the roads/walkways.
Roads are a common service, health care is not.
Quote:I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Basically every other industrialized democracy in the world controls costs through the government setting guidelines on how much will be charged for services. If there are exceptions, feel free to educate me. But since it seems to me the U.S. has a worse cost-to-value ratio than all of those other countries, what do you mean?
No problem. In America, the vast majority of people have health insurance through their employers. This creates another layer of bureaucracy between the service provider and the consumer. Ultimately, it is the consumer making decisions in their own best interest from a diverse constellation of goods and services that provides the best mitigation against cost and the best insurance of value. As it stands now, Doctors don't really have to worry about attracting individual consumers, they just have to worry about being part of a Network. Insurance companies don't have to worry about catering to individual consumers, they just manage large groups. (within these groups is an underlying implied TERM of employment that leads to another actuarial slight of hand, but anyway.) The end result is a system by which most if not all health care providers DON'T REALLY HAVE TO COMPETE! When was the last time you actually asked a service provider how much a procedure will cost? And if you did ask when was the last time you got a straight answer? The entire office staff is, however, drilled on what guidelines must be met in order for a procedure to be COVERED.
This second decoupling of the consumer from the service provider happened as a result of the government trying to implement WAGE CONTROLS during the second world war. In order to attract NEW TALENT companies started offering HEALTH INSURANCE as a way around the WAGE CONTROLS. The employer based system was then essentially codified into law by the tax code. Employers get a write off, individuals don't. That makes NO SENSE!
Historically Wage and Price controls do not work. usually, one of two things happen. 1.) as above, companies just find a way around the artificial controls by just calling it something else or b.) it creates shortages and distortions in the market place that inevitably lead to government RATIONING. That's why in Britain it can take a few weeks or months for some diagnostic tests, while here M wife can get a referral from a morning doctors visit to get an MRI that afternoon. That kind of freedom can lead to more overall spending within the health care system that can make total costs look inflated on a balance sheet, as you alluded to above, but the alternative of limited access doesn't sound all that appealing when you think it through.
Ultimately, the more choices the consumer has the better. When you go into a store they don't hide how much a gallon of milk costs, they don't hide the cost of a porterhouse. This allows people to make the best decisions for them given their circumstances and set their own priorities. This also gives the grocers incentive to keep costs in line so they can attract more consumers. But allowing them the flexibility of controlling price allows ALL PRODUCERS to respond to real market forces of scarcity or abundance so that there's still food on the shelves for us to choose from. In healthcare, we have to a.) increase the amount of choices that consumers have, and give them more control over how dollars are allocated to reintroduce price competition to a system that currently thrives on large pools of employees that will be part of a network just by virtue of signing on with a w-2
Quote:Roads are a common service, health care is not.
That's the way you have been programmed. Why not? Everyone requires both.
Quote:Roads are a common service, health care is not.
You will pay either way. No insurance they go to the hospital and run up a bills up even for minor stuff and increase the wait times for those with more serious needs. If they have government insurance maybe have better preventative care and the costs are reduced seeing a PCP instead of going to the hospital.
Quote:No problem. In America, the vast majority of people have health insurance through their employers. This creates another layer of bureaucracy between the service provider and the consumer. Ultimately, it is the consumer making decisions in their own best interest from a diverse constellation of goods and services that provides the best mitigation against cost and the best insurance of value. As it stands now, Doctors don't really have to worry about attracting individual consumers, they just have to worry about being part of a Network. Insurance companies don't have to worry about catering to individual consumers, they just manage large groups. (within these groups is an underlying implied TERM of employment that leads to another actuarial slight of hand, but anyway.) The end result is a system by which most if not all health care providers DON'T REALLY HAVE TO COMPETE! When was the last time you actually asked a service provider how much a procedure will cost? And if you did ask when was the last time you got a straight answer? The entire office staff is, however, drilled on what guidelines must be met in order for a procedure to be COVERED.
This second decoupling of the consumer from the service provider happened as a result of the government trying to implement WAGE CONTROLS during the second world war. In order to attract NEW TALENT companies started offering HEALTH INSURANCE as a way around the WAGE CONTROLS. The employer based system was then essentially codified into law by the tax code. Employers get a write off, individuals don't. That makes NO SENSE!
Historically Wage and Price controls do not work. usually, one of two things happen. 1.) as above, companies just find a way around the artificial controls by just calling it something else or b.) it creates shortages and distortions in the market place that inevitably lead to government RATIONING. That's why in Britain it can take a few weeks or months for some diagnostic tests, while here M wife can get a referral from a morning doctors visit to get an MRI that afternoon. That kind of freedom can lead to more overall spending within the health care system that can make total costs look inflated on a balance sheet, as you alluded to above, but the alternative of limited access doesn't sound all that appealing when you think it through.
Ultimately, the more choices the consumer has the better. When you go into a store they don't hide how much a gallon of milk costs, they don't hide the cost of a porterhouse. This allows people to make the best decisions for them given their circumstances and set their own priorities. This also gives the grocers incentive to keep costs in line so they can attract more consumers. But allowing them the flexibility of controlling price allows ALL PRODUCERS to respond to real market forces of scarcity or abundance so that there's still food on the shelves for us to choose from. In healthcare, we have to a.) increase the amount of choices that consumers have, and give them more control over how dollars are allocated to reintroduce price competition to a system that currently thrives on large pools of employees that will be part of a network just by virtue of signing on with a w-2
Why do most people have to opt into healthcare coverage through their employer? Why did this become a thing?
Quote:That's the way you have been programmed. Why not? Everyone requires both.
Stop. There's lots of things an indivudual requires, few of them are a legitimate reason for government confiscation of private wealth to finance them. Societal greed is how you've been programmed. It's not yours.
Quote:No problem. In America, the vast majority of people have health insurance through their employers. This creates another layer of bureaucracy between the service provider and the consumer. Ultimately, it is the consumer making decisions in their own best interest from a diverse constellation of goods and services that provides the best mitigation against cost and the best insurance of value. As it stands now, Doctors don't really have to worry about attracting individual consumers, they just have to worry about being part of a Network. Insurance companies don't have to worry about catering to individual consumers, they just manage large groups. (within these groups is an underlying implied TERM of employment that leads to another actuarial slight of hand, but anyway.) The end result is a system by which most if not all health care providers DON'T REALLY HAVE TO COMPETE! When was the last time you actually asked a service provider how much a procedure will cost? And if you did ask when was the last time you got a straight answer? The entire office staff is, however, drilled on what guidelines must be met in order for a procedure to be COVERED.
This second decoupling of the consumer from the service provider happened as a result of the government trying to implement WAGE CONTROLS during the second world war. In order to attract NEW TALENT companies started offering HEALTH INSURANCE as a way around the WAGE CONTROLS. The employer based system was then essentially codified into law by the tax code. Employers get a write off, individuals don't. That makes NO SENSE!
Historically Wage and Price controls do not work. usually, one of two things happen. 1.) as above, companies just find a way around the artificial controls by just calling it something else or b.) it creates shortages and distortions in the market place that inevitably lead to government RATIONING. That's why in Britain it can take a few weeks or months for some diagnostic tests, while here M wife can get a referral from a morning doctors visit to get an MRI that afternoon. That kind of freedom can lead to more overall spending within the health care system that can make total costs look inflated on a balance sheet, as you alluded to above, but the alternative of limited access doesn't sound all that appealing when you think it through.
Ultimately, the more choices the consumer has the better. When you go into a store they don't hide how much a gallon of milk costs, they don't hide the cost of a porterhouse. This allows people to make the best decisions for them given their circumstances and set their own priorities. This also gives the grocers incentive to keep costs in line so they can attract more consumers. But allowing them the flexibility of controlling price allows ALL PRODUCERS to respond to real market forces of scarcity or abundance so that there's still food on the shelves for us to choose from. In healthcare, we have to a.) increase the amount of choices that consumers have, and give them more control over how dollars are allocated to reintroduce price competition to a system that currently thrives on large pools of employees that will be part of a network just by virtue of signing on with a w-2
OK, that makes a bit more sense. Still think we would get better overall deals with the government using leverage to get the best rates possible, but totally agree with the lack of prices transparency being terrible for consumers. Also agree that tying health care to employment is a bad idea. But all of the other countries use the government's power to negotiate better deals than the american consumer is saddled with. Some folks are arguing that we should allow folks to negotiate prices in groups, like plumbers or realtors, etc. Why not use the biggest group of all, citizen, to get the best rates?
Quote:You will pay either way. No insurance they go to the hospital and run up a bills up even for minor stuff and increase the wait times for those with more serious needs. If they have government insurance maybe have better preventative care and the costs are reduced seeing a PCP instead of going to the hospital.
No, that is the flaw, I only have to pay for it because a government agent with a gun forces me to. Hospitals are forced to provide uncompensated care. Eliminate those and free the market, let people have their freedom for good or ill.