• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AMA opposes Obama's Health Care plans...

Don't you already negotiate your rates with insurance companies for procedures? Are insurance companies really asking you to charge them more, for a procedure?

In general, we don't negotiate rates. Insurance companies tell us what they will allow, take it or leave it. The consistency amongst companies is atrocious. BC/BS for example, authorizes twice the amount for the exact same procedure as Cigna. And BC/BS's rate is nearly half of what is the going rate, out of pocket. Further, Cigna hasn't changed their rate in 10 years...imagine not getting a raise in 10 years. I could tell you many, many stories of insurance company abuses and manipulations. This is why I strongly favor the healthcare industry being highly regulated.
 
Imagine that. Doctors who make most of their money buying into the system that the insurance agency has setup to make its own money rejecting a system that attacks its bread and butter.

You don't say. Celticlord (along with others) is correct that the insurance industry has got to go. How many doctors are arguing for that? :2wave:
 
In Message #13 in this thread, I noted:

If health costs rise persistently faster than the economy grows, there will be a scarcity of funds at some point. The situation would be analogous to an asset bubble, except in this case it would be an expenditures bubble. At some point, the costs would become so great that immediate hard rationing would occur out of necessity, as defaults on payments would increase rapidly, government would cap its expenditures due to competing priorities/inability to borrow unlimited sums of money, etc. That situation would be disruptive, both economically and with respect to those whose health needs would not be accommodated.

It is highly unlikely that foreigners would be willing to lend to the U.S. to finance those excess costs absent reforms that contain the growth of such costs. Otherwise, they would be concerned that they might never be repaid.


Today, CNBC reported:

New research from Citigroup...adds another specter to the list: the U.S. health-care industry. A pair of economists at the bank, Steven Wieting and Shawn Snyder, note that “functioning market price competition barely exists” in the health industry, whose per-capita spending is now nearly twice that, on average, of other developed nations.”

...This helps explain how health-care spending has grown 2.5 times faster than incomes over the past three decades. “The health-care system in the U.S. reminds us somewhat ominously of the bubble in housing finance, [also] a ‘public/private’ partnership,” cautions Citi.


IMO, the bottom line is:

1. The continuing excessive health expenditures trajectory is unsustainable.
2. The need for health care reform that addresses the unsustainable health cost issue remains unaddressed and continues to grow in urgency.
 
I was looking to see who dared bump a 3 year old thread, and it turned out to be Don, and it turned out to be a worthwhile bump. Thanks for sharing some fascinating information. The question I think is not whether something needs to be done, but what needs to be done. The law before SCOTUS did not really address the cost issue, which is the big issue.
 
In Message #13 in this thread, I noted:

If health costs rise persistently faster than the economy grows, there will be a scarcity of funds at some point. The situation would be analogous to an asset bubble, except in this case it would be an expenditures bubble. At some point, the costs would become so great that immediate hard rationing would occur out of necessity, as defaults on payments would increase rapidly, government would cap its expenditures due to competing priorities/inability to borrow unlimited sums of money, etc. That situation would be disruptive, both economically and with respect to those whose health needs would not be accommodated.

It is highly unlikely that foreigners would be willing to lend to the U.S. to finance those excess costs absent reforms that contain the growth of such costs. Otherwise, they would be concerned that they might never be repaid.


Today, CNBC reported:

New research from Citigroup...adds another specter to the list: the U.S. health-care industry. A pair of economists at the bank, Steven Wieting and Shawn Snyder, note that “functioning market price competition barely exists” in the health industry, whose per-capita spending is now nearly twice that, on average, of other developed nations.”

...This helps explain how health-care spending has grown 2.5 times faster than incomes over the past three decades. “The health-care system in the U.S. reminds us somewhat ominously of the bubble in housing finance, [also] a ‘public/private’ partnership,” cautions Citi.


IMO, the bottom line is:

1. The continuing excessive health expenditures trajectory is unsustainable.
2. The need for health care reform that addresses the unsustainable health cost issue remains unaddressed and continues to grow in urgency.

And herein is the problem:

functioning market price competition barely exists” in the health industry

Forcing everyone into third-party paying is only going to make this worse.
 
And herein is the problem:



Forcing everyone into third-party paying is only going to make this worse.

I am thinking we need a thread to discuss this type thing, but for now...if people are not forced to carry health insurance, then every one is paying for those people without insurance, and we don't gain anything. I think that part is not really part of the solution or problem. I think we do need to look at and implement some form of tort reform(small gains, but gains nonetheless), interstate competition, and a host of other things I don't know about. Let me look at making a new thread in general politics and link to it for handy reference.
 
I am thinking we need a thread to discuss this type thing, but for now...if people are not forced to carry health insurance, then every one is paying for those people without insurance, and we don't gain anything. I think that part is not really part of the solution or problem. I think we do need to look at and implement some form of tort reform(small gains, but gains nonetheless), interstate competition, and a host of other things I don't know about. Let me look at making a new thread in general politics and link to it for handy reference.

I think all those small things would have the same effect as tackling welfare reform (1% of the budget) has on balancing the federal budget, . . . hardly noticeable. Just as you can't tackle the federal budget without tackling the big three, you can't really do any serious medical reform without looking at payers. And medicine has the additional problem of access.
 
Back
Top Bottom