• 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!

Healthcare question...

Another interesting excerpt from the article for anyone unable to dive in atm.

"In December, when the New York Times ran a story about how a deficit deal might threaten hospital payments, Steven Safyer, chief executive of Montefiore Medical Center, a large nonprofit hospital system in the Bronx, complained, “There is no such thing as a cut to a provider that isn’t a cut to a beneficiary ... This is not crying wolf.”
Actually, Safyer seems to be crying wolf to the tune of about $196.8 million, according to the hospital’s latest publicly available tax return. That was his hospital’s operating profit, according to its 2010 return. With $2.586 billion in revenue — of which 99.4% came from patient bills and 0.6% from fundraising events and other charitable contributions — Safyer’s business is more than six times as large as that of the Bronx’s most famous enterprise, the New York Yankees. Surely, without cutting services to beneficiaries, Safyer could cut what have to be some of the Bronx’s better non-Yankee salaries: his own, which was $4,065,000, or those of his chief financial officer ($3,243,000), his executive vice president ($2,220,000) or the head of his dental department ($1,798,000)."

https://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

And because it's a nonprofit, its not paying the same taxes as a for profit hospitals who actually profit less than nonprofits.
 
https://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

Read the whole article it really goes deep into the subject. And Obamacare failed to address these problems because of lobbying, if it affected pricing, the hospital lobby would never have let it pass. Its the biggest reason he chose a republican healthcare plan in the first place that the hospital cartels had no issue with. It was just easier to address the insurance side of the problem.

Interestingly Brill's first proposed solution there is to use antitrust law to stop hospital consolidation, but when he wrote the book based on the article he proposed encouraging consolidation (with certain strings attached):

4loqih.png
 
Interestingly Brill's first proposed solution there is to use antitrust law to stop hospital consolidation, but when he wrote the book based on the article he proposed encouraging consolidation (with certain strings attached):

4loqih.png

That is interesting, hadn't seen this before. And it's definitely a thought worth discussion. For one it appeals to me because its a purely capitalistic move. Like old Standard Oil style Capitalism. My favorite kind. on the other hand, as an underwriter, I don't think he considered the insurance side of it. That part would need adjusted, as insurance companies are fairly intricate entities with deep roots in the economy. We would lower healthcare costs, but towns would go bankrupt if insurance companies go belly up.

Maybe have Insurance companies merge into hospital networks?
 
This is a good question. And the answer basically boils down to, hospitals arbitrarily set the prices high because they like money and lobbied for the right. Time did an article back in 2013 covering the chargemaster system.

"The health care industry seems to have the will and the means to keep it that way. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and health-care-product industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health services and HMOs, have spent $5.36 billion since 1998 on lobbying in Washington. That dwarfs the $1.53 billion spent by the defense and aerospace industries and the $1.3 billion spent by oil and gas interests over the same period. That’s right: the health-care-industrial complex spends more than three times what the military-industrial complex spends in Washington"

https://www.uta.edu/faculty/story/2311/Misc/2013,2,26,MedicalCostsDemandAndGreed.pdf

Read the whole article it really goes deep into the subject. And Obamacare failed to address these problems because of lobbying, if it affected pricing, the hospital lobby would never have let it pass. Its the biggest reason he chose a republican healthcare plan in the first place that the hospital cartels had no issue with. It was just easier to address the insurance side of the problem.

I'd be so much more comfortable had you"admitted" this was bipartisan failure instead of, for some reason, focusing on the Right.
 
I'd be so much more comfortable had you"admitted" this was bipartisan failure instead of, for some reason, focusing on the Right.

read it again, if you think that is a criticism of either side you are misreading it. It only seems like a criticism to you because you are so prejudice against Obamacare. Stating a fact that it was a Republican plan before Obama made it his own implies nothing positive or negative. Especially taken into context with the sentiment that its the hospitals screwing it up.

This is a case of your own partisan leanings clowding your judgement Maggie. If you can only make knee jerk reactions anytime "the right" is cast in a negative way, your knee will be constantly jerking and nothing will get done. My advice, ignore both sides criticisms of each other and focus on the things they are trying to distract you from.

The right v left dog and pony show, is just a show to distract you from things like the hospitals are screwing us. While we argue over which side is better, special interests are getting their agendas passed and protected with support from both sides. Its sleight of hand on the grandest stage. Don't fall for it.
 
read it again, if you think that is a criticism of either side you are misreading it. It only seems like a criticism to you because you are so prejudice against Obamacare. Stating a fact that it was a Republican plan before Obama made it his own implies nothing positive or negative. Especially taken into context with the sentiment that its the hospitals screwing it up.

This is a case of your own partisan leanings clowding your judgement Maggie. If you can only make knee jerk reactions anytime "the right" is cast in a negative way, your knee will be constantly jerking and nothing will get done. My advice, ignore both sides criticisms of each other and focus on the things they are trying to distract you from.

The right v left dog and pony show, is just a show to distract you from things like the hospitals are screwing us. While we argue over which side is better, special interests are getting their agendas passed and protected with support from both sides. Its sleight of hand on the grandest stage. Don't fall for it.

MaggieD is a dingbat. I misread this...

This is a good question. And the answer basically boils down to, hospitals arbitrarily set the prices high because they like money and lobbied for the right.

Mea Culpa.

I supported Obamacare quite vociferously, just so you know though. ;)
 
That is interesting, hadn't seen this before. And it's definitely a thought worth discussion. For one it appeals to me because its a purely capitalistic move. Like old Standard Oil style Capitalism. My favorite kind. on the other hand, as an underwriter, I don't think he considered the insurance side of it. That part would need adjusted, as insurance companies are fairly intricate entities with deep roots in the economy. We would lower healthcare costs, but towns would go bankrupt if insurance companies go belly up.

Maybe have Insurance companies merge into hospital networks?

That last sentence is what he's getting at (I believe--honestly, I haven't read his book). Provider systems that absorb an insurance company and sell their own insurance directly to consumers then own the entirety of the premium revenue. Then they've got a reliable monthly revenue stream and can start delivering care in ways that get away from the perversions of the fee-for-service treadmill they're used to.

It's an interesting idea (though I do wonder how many markets could really support multiple competing integrated delivery systems). But it has some drawbacks, not least of which being that provider-sponsored insurance has been proliferating in the past few years and thus far the results aren't spectacular for the systems experimenting with it.

Mounting health plan losses have hospital systems on edge
Hospital companies have been losing money left and right since they started a trend a few years ago to own and operate their own health plans. Those financial failures will be highlighted as the new quarterly earnings season kicks off. Tenet Healthcare Corp. and Catholic Health Initiatives are still trying to sell their health plans after racking up big losses on them in the past year.

Healthcare executives had hoped the strategy of integrating hospitals, doctors and other care settings with insurance under one roof would lower spending and improve care coordination—a strategy hospitals tested a couple decades ago, but it ultimately failed for those who had little experience in the insurance industry.

CHI, one of the largest not-for-profit health systems in the country, lost $100 million on its insurance business in fiscal 2016, while Tenet announced in February that it lost $37 million on its health plan in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. Both CHI of Englewood, Colo., and Dallas-based Tenet have vowed to exit the health plan business if they can't find buyers for their struggling units. CHI's insurance division, QualChoice Health, has hemorrhaged money since its inception. QualChoice sells Medicare Advantage plans and commercial plans to employers in six states.

Partners HealthCare System, the parent of Massachusetts General Hospital, announced in December that it lost $100 million-plus on its health plan in fiscal 2016 but was sticking to it. Partners' Neighborhood Health plan was heavily responsible for swinging the system's operating income from a $106.5 million gain in fiscal 2015.

Phoenix-based Banner Health is also trying to right its health plans. The 28-hospital not-for-profit saw operating losses in its insurance operations widen to $153.8 million in 2016, compared with an operating loss of $38.7 million in 2015. Banner is cutting administrative costs, refining benefit plans and focusing on reducing hospitalizations, said Chuck Lehn, executive vice president of strategic growth.
 
MaggieD is a dingbat. I misread this...



Mea Culpa.

I supported Obamacare quite vociferously, just so you know though. ;)

Most did for a time, then alot of support fell of once their state got ahold of the money and mishandled it. Normally, I'm all for States running their own show, but they didn't handle the extra money very well. That's the main reason insurance sucks in some States and not others.

Honestly, once issues have gotten this divisive, I feel it's best to take it off the Federal table and Put it on the States tables. I say repeal Obamacare, and Issue a Mandate that each state has to gather funds from within the State and provide a system of their choosing as long as the coverage meets a minimum level of coverage. A basic 60/40 Coverage with an 1100 dollar deductible. And a cap of 32,000 dollars before Catastrophic kicks in 90/10 Max out of pocket/year 6,000.

There are several ways to accomplish this using either private insurance markets, or single payer. Basically each state would choose their own form of healthcare. And fund their own form of healthcare. And screw up their own healthcare.

Of course give a grace period on Obamacare while the States are pulling their plans together.
 
or we could have a healthcare delivery system like the rest of the first world, where if you get hurt, sick, or pregnant, you just go to the doctor or hospital instead of crafting a plan to avoid becoming destitute.

Even if you did, and it didn't go bankrupt within a few years..

As a "Dirty White Male", I wouldn't "Qualify" anyway, so why on earth should I support such a plan?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...crats-campaign-managers-dont-get-and-why.html

Once Again, the Sales Department doesn't understand what the Claims Department is doing...

-
 
That last sentence is what he's getting at (I believe--honestly, I haven't read his book). Provider systems that absorb an insurance company and sell their own insurance directly to consumers then own the entirety of the premium revenue. Then they've got a reliable monthly revenue stream and can start delivering care in ways that get away from the perversions of the fee-for-service treadmill they're used to.

It's an interesting idea (though I do wonder how many markets could really support multiple competing integrated delivery systems). But it has some drawbacks, not least of which being that provider-sponsored insurance has been proliferating in the past few years and thus far the results aren't spectacular for the systems experimenting with it.

Mounting health plan losses have hospital systems on edge

Ya, that's exactly what I thought would happen. Insurance is a business like no other. It's not just collecting everyone's premium and paying out of a big pool. Premium money is just seed money for gambling. High Stakes gambling. It's loaned out, invested, and used to create smaller versions of itself to test out new ways of making money. Drones designed to test markets and die off when there is a problem. And everyone owns each other, This company is parent to this company which is owned by the first company. Like a serpent eating its own tail. It's nothing to cut a sister or parent company loose, set adrift in the markets to die. And then bring a newer clean company. Insurance is a ruthless, cutthroat business. And when your doing good, you're doing real good. The comp is crazy, ipads, cars, trips to Hawaii, parties, events, social networking with billionaires. But when you're not doing so well, nothing. You get nothing. There are no paychecks or salaries. No lifeboats. Keep what you kill.

So yeah, might be better to have Insurance absorb the hospitals. They are alot better at efficiency.
 
how does race play into health care distribution in Canada?

Wouldn't know. I'm not Canadian.

I know how the ACA contains multiple layers of Racial Preferences...

I know that 64% of the American Voters are White.

So... It ain't happening.

It least, American Leftie run Single Payer Health Care won't happen until the Lefties abandon Racial Preference Pandering Divisive Politics!

And a very long time passes, for a majority of decades-screwed-over Whites decide that the Lefties finally really mean to stick to a policy of Race-Neutrality.

We, 64% of the Voters, don't want the Government controlling anything essential, because we won't "Qualify!" You lose!

If you attempt to push through single payer anyway, you won't get it, you'll get more TRUMP!

We ... Don't... Trust you!

-
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't know. I'm not Canadian.

I know how the ACA contains multiple layers of Racial Preferences...

I know that 64% of the American Voters are White.

So... It ain't happening.

It least, American Leftie run Single Payer Health Care won't happen until the Lefties abandon Racial Preference Pandering Divisive Politics!

And a very long time passes, for a majority of decades-screwed-over Whites decide that the Lefties finally really mean to stick to a policy of Race-Neutrality.

We, 64% of the Voters, don't want the Government controlling anything essential, because we won't "Qualify!" You lose!

If you attempt to push through single payer anyway, you won't get it, you'll get more TRUMP!

We ... Don't... Trust you!

-


more right wing fake news
 
Wouldn't know. I'm not Canadian.

I know how the ACA contains multiple layers of Racial Preferences...

I know that 64% of the American Voters are White.

So... It ain't happening.

It least, American Leftie run Single Payer Health Care won't happen until the Lefties abandon Racial Preference Pandering Divisive Politics!

And a very long time passes, for a majority of decades-screwed-over Whites decide that the Lefties finally really mean to stick to a policy of Race-Neutrality.

We, 64% of the Voters, don't want the Government controlling anything essential, because we won't "Qualify!" You lose!

If you attempt to push through single payer anyway, you won't get it, you'll get more TRUMP!

We ... Don't... Trust you!

-

I'm an American and a white male. Please don't purport to speak for all of us. I, for one, am not hung up with persecution complexes.
 
Wouldn't know. I'm not Canadian.

I know how the ACA contains multiple layers of Racial Preferences...

I know that 64% of the American Voters are White.

So... It ain't happening.

It least, American Leftie run Single Payer Health Care won't happen until the Lefties abandon Racial Preference Pandering Divisive Politics!

And a very long time passes, for a majority of decades-screwed-over Whites decide that the Lefties finally really mean to stick to a policy of Race-Neutrality.

We, 64% of the Voters, don't want the Government controlling anything essential, because we won't "Qualify!" You lose!

If you attempt to push through single payer anyway, you won't get it, you'll get more TRUMP!

We ... Don't... Trust you!

-

so you have no evidence that single payer health care systems in other first world countries discriminate against white people. fair enough.
 
I listened to a Republican Rep explain why he didn't vote for the new healthcare bill...it did not require doctors and hospitals to post their charges.

"My son fell, and he needs an x-ray. How much is my son's X-ray gong to cost us?"

Reasonable question, right? And when I haven't met my deductible, it's a big issue.

Now, if you understand healthcare insurance, you understand that how much it costs is governed by a few things... who is your insurance carrier? And do you have insurance at all?

IMO, this is absolutely fundamental in bringing down healthcare costs. The ability to comparison shop.

Neither Omamacare nor Trump's plan addresses this basic problem.

Why?

It was part of President Trump's seven point healthcare plan on the campaign trail: price transparency.

Their hands are tied. If they tried to pass price transparency, it wouldn't fall under budget reconciliation. They need it to fall under budget reconciliation in order to pass with a simple majority in the senate, otherwise they'll need to turn 8 democrats to hit 60 votes. They can't "repeal" and attract democrats, so they're restricted from passing real healthcare reform.

It's basically more partisanship before country. They're moving forward without bipartisan support, they're making the same mistake democrats did.
 
so you have no evidence that single payer health care systems in other first world countries discriminate against white people. fair enough.

I've plenty of evidence that American Government Run ANYTHING discriminates against White People, and have no expectation that a single payer health care system would be any different,....

.... other than as a "Single Payer" system, if they discrimate against White People, the White People won't have any where else to turn to for health care.

So, NO!

As the single largest voting demographic group, we will vote out any Leftie who attempts to push single payer health care.


-
 
I've plenty of evidence that American Government Run ANYTHING discriminates against White People, and have no expectation that a single payer health care system would be any different,....

.... other than as a "Single Payer" system, if they discrimate against White People, the White People won't have any where else to turn to for health care.

So, NO!

As the single largest voting demographic group, we will vote out any Leftie who attempts to push single payer health care.


-

Helix said:
so you have no evidence that single payer health care systems in other first world countries discriminate against white people. fair enough.

.....
 
Back
Top Bottom