• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

They would be of market competition: same reason the drugstore doesn't charge $16 for a box of bandaids.

Drugstores don't charge that much for bandaids because they are not regulated to death and dont have to hire loads of workers just to do the paperwork required by regulations.
 
They all charge $16 for the bandaid, so I don't see what you are getting at. Or do you mean that insurance companies can deny payment for a billed item because of cost compared to a different locale?

I'm saying that right now they all have to eat the cost of the treatment of uninsured patients. If you lower their costs by reducing the number of uninsured patients, then they will lower their prices.
 
Last edited:
Drugstores don't charge that much for bandaids because they are not regulated to death and dont have to hire loads of workers just to do the paperwork required by regulations.

That's part of it. Another part is that they don't have to give their bandaids away to anyone who can't afford to pay for them.
 
That's part of it. Another part is that they don't have to give their bandaids away to anyone who can't afford to pay for them.

It is a bigger part than any other.
 
I'm saying that right now they all have to eat the cost of the treatment of uninsured patients. If you lower their costs by reducing the number of uninsured patients, then they will lower their prices.

But why would they bother. The Hospital/Doctor Office etc will just be happy that there profit margin went from the 3-4% they average now to 8-12%. The insurance company doesn't care, because the law locked them into a 15% margin minus administrative costs regardless of what they pay.

I don't see what the incentive is to lower the price since they can get $16 now.
 
But why would they bother. The Hospital/Doctor Office etc will just be happy that there profit margin went from the 3-4% they average now to 8-12%. The insurance company doesn't care, because the law locked them into a 15% margin minus administrative costs regardless of what they pay.

I don't see what the incentive is to lower the price since they can get $16 now.

You're talking about two separate issues. The first issue, which I was addressing, was the significant cost that hospitals pay for uncompensated emergency room care. If the hospital/doctor just experienced a 5-8% increase in net profit, I can assure you that there will be competing doctors and hospitals willing to charge less in order to take their business.

You're talking about the requirement that the insurance company has to spend at least 85% of the premium on medical care. Let's use round numbers to make it easier. Say the premium is $10,000 and the insurer is currenctly spending 80% of that on care. That leaves $2,000 for costs and profit. Now they're required to spend 85%, so that leaves $1,500 for costs and profit. How do they get back to that $2,000 under your scenario? In order to make up the lost $500, they would have to increase their medical payments by $3,333 (because 15% of $3333 = $500). That means they would have to increase their payout to providers by a little over 40%. Do you think no one is going to noitice that? There are laws against price fixing and insurance bad faith, you know. And I'm sure there must be something in AHCA that puts some teeth into, too.
 
Last edited:
And your evidence for that is what?

I work in over a dozen hospitals and clinics. I talk to the doctors, I talk to the administrators. In most of them, there is more 'administrative' staff, to keep up with all the paperwork required by regulations, than there is medical staff.
 
But why would they bother. The Hospital/Doctor Office etc will just be happy that there profit margin went from the 3-4% they average now to 8-12%. The insurance company doesn't care, because the law locked them into a 15% margin minus administrative costs regardless of what they pay.

I don't see what the incentive is to lower the price since they can get $16 now.

The incentive is they will have to pay back any premiums over the 15% margin, if their costs are less then they will be FORCED to lower prices.
 
You're talking about two separate issues. The first issue, which I was addressing, was the significant cost that hospitals pay for uncompensated emergency room care.

You're talking about the requirement that the insurance company has to spend at least 85% of the premium on medical care. Let's use round numbers to make it easier. Say the premium is $10,000 and the insurer is currenctly spending 80% of that on care. That leaves $2,000 for costs and profit. Now they're required to spend 85%, so that leaves $1,500 for costs and profit. How do they get back to that $2,000 under your scenario? In order to make up the lost $500, they would have to increase their medical payments by $3,333 (because 15% of $3333 = $500). That means they would have to increase their payout to providers by a little over 40%. Do you think no one is going to noitice that? There are laws against price fixing and insurance bad faith, you know. And I'm sure there must be something in AHCA that puts some teeth into, too.

And the Hospital bakes that cost into their existing price structure, so why would they take it out when its already baked in? They wouldn't, because now its just more profit for them, since they've been operating on thin margins for years.

In your insurance company example, you've forgotten that they've had their rolls padded due to AHCA which has increased their premium revenue and costs, although not in a good way.

Since your argument is that people without insurance are driving up costs, that means that those people are using services on the cheap or free. However, you've now added them to the insurance rolls, which directly is increasing the medical payments an insurance company makes. Therefore, it makes it easier for an insurance company to justify raising premiums to the 85% level to cover the increased costs you've just added to their rolls.

So in a nutshell, both the insurance company and the hospitals/doctors win because the insurance company gets to justify its premium hikes while doctors/hospitals enjoy a larger profit margin. And we all pay more.
 
Last edited:
And the Hospital bakes that cost into their existing price structure, so why would they take it out when its already baked in? They wouldn't, because now its just more profit for them, since they've been operating on thin margins for years.

Again ... free market ecnoomics. Not sure what you don't get about that. Obviously every business would like to raise prices as high as they possibly can, but they're restrained by competitors who will come in and undercut them.

As far as the insurance companies go, they will benefit from AHCA because they will have greater volume, even though they will have slightly lower margins.

You do, however, make a good case for the public option. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Again ... free market ecnoomics. Not sure what you don't get about that. Obviously every business would like to raise prices as high as they possibly can, but they're restrained by competitors who will come in and undercut them.

As far as the insurance companies go, they will benefit from AHCA because they will have greater volume, even though they will have slightly lower margins.

You do, however, make a good case for the public option. :thumbs:

If the public option happens, the doctors left will have thinner resumes than the sitting president.
 
Like I said, you are making the same argument that the Obama administration is making. It basically asking the court to by pass Congressional authority on policy matters. The court shouldn't get involved, Congress should just have to amend the law to remove that section. if they can't then oh ****ing well and IMO it will be a good thing. It will force insurance companies to create plans to civet sick people that went bankrupt them which is easy to do.

Bold: Congress never amends a law unless two things happen. First and what is the most common reason is that the courts strike a part of a law out. Second and is rarely the reason is if the majority of people cry out about it. Congress loves passing laws but hates amending them or getting rid of them.

Underlined: Yes it would. And without the mandate insurance companies would fold and if that happens then what are people going to do? We'll be in worse shape than we are now.

Green: So you would give the government power to dictate that you must buy things? Implanted GPS trackers here we come! Exercise machines here we come!
 
Drugstores don't charge that much for bandaids because they are not regulated to death and dont have to hire loads of workers just to do the paperwork required by regulations.

Drugstores might not charge that much, but hospitals would. Why? Because they are regulated a crapload.
 
I'm saying that right now they all have to eat the cost of the treatment of uninsured patients. If you lower their costs by reducing the number of uninsured patients, then they will lower their prices.

At least that is what they say........weather it actually happens or not? That is another story.
 
You're talking about two separate issues. The first issue, which I was addressing, was the significant cost that hospitals pay for uncompensated emergency room care. If the hospital/doctor just experienced a 5-8% increase in net profit, I can assure you that there will be competing doctors and hospitals willing to charge less in order to take their business.

There is a difference between a private doctor and a hospital that is state sponsored. A private doctor will more than likely have a small clinic at best. A hospital on the other hand will get buisness regardless because it is state sponsored. As are ambulances who pick up all the emergency cases and bring them to the nearest state sponsored hospital.

The reason that there are doctors that go the private route is because they can get more money. If they realize that they can start making more money via a state sponsored hospital then private doctors will dry up.

Most doctors that work in state sponsored hospitals do so for a couple of reasons. 1: They don't have the money to start up their own clinic. 2: There are doctors that actually don't care how much they are paid..they just want to help people as much as possible and a state sponsored hospital gets the most buisness.
 
I work in over a dozen hospitals and clinics. I talk to the doctors, I talk to the administrators. In most of them, there is more 'administrative' staff, to keep up with all the paperwork required by regulations, than there is medical staff.

So do I. And that is not my experience.
 
If the public option happens, the doctors left will have thinner resumes than the sitting president.

Not likely. Not even remotely likely.
 
There is a difference between a private doctor and a hospital that is state sponsored. A private doctor will more than likely have a small clinic at best. A hospital on the other hand will get buisness regardless because it is state sponsored. As are ambulances who pick up all the emergency cases and bring them to the nearest state sponsored hospital.

The reason that there are doctors that go the private route is because they can get more money. If they realize that they can start making more money via a state sponsored hospital then private doctors will dry up.

Most doctors that work in state sponsored hospitals do so for a couple of reasons. 1: They don't have the money to start up their own clinic. 2: There are doctors that actually don't care how much they are paid..they just want to help people as much as possible and a state sponsored hospital gets the most buisness.

Where are these "state sponsored" hospitals you're talking about?
 
If the public option happens, the doctors left will have thinner resumes than the sitting president.

Right, all the doctors are going to quit to become ... waiters and waitresses?
 
I work in over a dozen hospitals and clinics. I talk to the doctors, I talk to the administrators. In most of them, there is more 'administrative' staff, to keep up with all the paperwork required by regulations, than there is medical staff.

So all you have is anecdotal impressions.... That's convincing. :roll:

But it does highlight another beautiful feature of single payer. No more multiple insurance forms to fill out. No more figuring out what's covered by which formulary. No more haggling with insurance companies over bills and who's in network and out, or sort of in, and what each option costs. If you go to a doctor's office in France they usually don't even have a receptionist. Don't need one because all the records are electronic and everyone carries a card that contains her complete medical history.
 
Back
Top Bottom