• 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!

No Country for pregnant women!

iguanaman said:
Yet they love Medicare, Social Security, the VA and the U.S military. All socialized programs. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Actually Medicare is a better program that Canadian government healthcare.

I would not be quick to say .. they "love" the VA. The VA has its very real troubles.
 
There is so much about this country that is disgraceful, while a large percentage of the population cheers on these disgraceful things.

Poverty rates, healthcare costs, decreasing life expectancy, child birth issue, imprisonment rates, gun violence, etc
 
Soopairik said:
Many Americans are opposed to this idea simply because they're scared of "socialism."
Click to expand...

Yup, brainwashed into thinking that, just like they are with "regulations are bad" and "capitalism will fix things"
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually Medicare is a better program that Canadian government healthcare.

I would not be quick to say .. they "love" the VA. The VA has its very real troubles.
Click to expand...

So vets don't want free healthcare? The problem is too little money allocated for the program. Not the program itself.
 
iguanaman said:
So vets don't want free healthcare? The problem is too little money allocated for the program. Not the program itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah.. where do you get that.

Vets definitely want healthcare. And yes.. some of the problem is the program itself.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/11/28/watchdog-va-failed-report-90-percent-of-poor-performing-doctors.html

National Survey by Jackson Healthcare Studies Physicians' Experiences with the Veterans Administration

Half of the physicians who have experience practicing medicine at the Veterans Administration and the private sector since 2000 say the quality of care is worse in the VA system, according to a national survey of more than 1,500 doctors conducted by Jackson Healthcare.

Fifty percent of the doctors who have practiced at the VA and in the private sector said the quality of care for military veterans is worse than in private practice. Thirty-one percent said it is about the same.
Click to expand...
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Yup, brainwashed into thinking that, just like they are with "regulations are bad" and "capitalism will fix things"
Click to expand...

Except nearly economic recession in the US was solved through government intervention.
 
jaeger19 said:
No.. I don't think you understand that you asked two different questions.

Reimbursment to providers per patient was one question... that has gone down or stagnated for the most part. It has NOT gone up with inflation.

However.. OVERALL payments to providers is UP.. because there are MORE PATIENTS now than there were before.


So.. in 2005, I got say 110 for a procedure. Now in 2017 that same procedure is being reimbursed at 97 dollars.

however.. in 2005 I would have maybe 120 procedures a week..

Now we have outlasted two of my competitors.. and have expanded.. and now we do 264 of that procedure a week.

So my reimbursement per patient is down... and is less than inflation.

BUT the amount of spending on healthcare overall has increased.. because we have more patients. Understand?

I understand why its difficult for folks to understand the numbers in the media because they play fast and loose with the numbers.

Often they will say "look we spent x amount on healthcare procedures). and that spending has increased overall per year because of course their are more patients and sicker patients.

BUT.. the actual reimbursement per patient has gone down or stagnated for the most part.

And then there is the third number which is "prices" or charges.. which is completely useless because they largely mean nothing to what the patient or insurance actually pays. The price or charges is basically a shell game depending on taxes, costs shifting etc.

for example.. that same procedure that I get paid 97 dollars on.. in 2005 I charged 125 for that procedure. In 2017. . I charge 160 for that same procedure. yet get reimbursed less.


now.. on pharmaceuticals.. you have a point. When the medicare modernization act came into being in 2001 (I think).. Medicare for pharma was created and it specifically prevents the government from negotiating prices. (probably because pharma had seen what the government does to us).
Click to expand...

Are you talking about patient paid procedures, insurance paid procedures, or Medicaid paid procedures? I've heard that Medicaid is poor pay, and that the rest of us have to make up the difference True or not true?

Here's info on those out of control drug prices. They're more costly here than anywhere else.
 
Soopairik said:
Many Americans are opposed to this idea simply because they're scared of "socialism."
Click to expand...

I cannot wait until enough of the "socialism is the enemy" generation dies off that they're no longer the loudest voice in American politics.
 
It's because of how babies are delivered. Most women entering the hospitals now are given pitocin drips to speed uterine contractions. It makes them more violent, which harms the vital signs of the baby. The doctor then swoops in and says, "Your baby is in danger, we need to act immediately", and suddenly you are getting a c-section. This is all done to accommodate hospital resources and doctor schedules. There are some people who theorize that the rise in autism may be related to this because pitocine-induced contractions can reduce blood flow to the brains of pre-born infants.

If we just let women birth babies normally (i.e. not on their backs in stirrups), with the support of modern medicine if they wanted it, we would not have the mortality rate that we do.

Instead, women are made to feel petrified of childbirth, so much so that as soon as contractions start they run to the hospital to be admitted to a system that may actually put their health at risk if they didn't have a birth plan laid out for their OBGYN ahead of time. If you don't assert your rights and plans ahead of time, then you will be processed through a standardized system that generally leads to much higher c-section rates.

C-sections are major surgery with potentially long-term complications, yet hospitals perform them like they're outpatient procedures.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Are you talking about patient paid procedures, insurance paid procedures, or Medicaid paid procedures? I've heard that Medicaid is poor pay, and that the rest of us have to make up the difference True or not true?

Here's info on those out of control drug prices. They're more costly here than anywhere else.
Click to expand...

All of the above.

Most procedures are "insurance paid". Most people have insurance.

So.. if you have insurance.. you have a contracted rate that the insurance will pay. EVEN if you have a high deductible, and you are paying "out of pocket".. you only have to pay to that contracted rate.. which is considerably lower than charges. (this is why.. it would be better without insurance argument is pretty much pure bunk).

If you don't have insurance, you will generally have to pay the charge rate (which is much higher), unless the provider can figure out how to give you a cash discount. It gets really tricky because insurance companies do not want to see you have different charges for different folks depending on insurance.

Generally.. you are way better having insurance even if you have a high deductible because generally the contracted rate will be lower than what you can get in a cash discount.

As far as who is the lowest payer?

VA is generally the lowest payer. I take it only because of the sacrifices our servicemen and women do. But I break even and in some cases lose money with VA reimbursement.

Medicaid used to be the lowest payer and a terrible payer.. usually denying payment (and for the longest time, we would not accept it. It was better just for me to decide to treat patients for FREE.. who had Medicaid rather than accept it, because I could pick and choose patients I was willing to treat for free.).

However, since OBamacare.. Medicaid rates are now comparable to Medicare in the states that we have businesses in. Different states might be different however.

When it comes to government insurance.. they are all the lowest payers in general. And yes.. to some extent private insurances make up the difference. IF I had to subsist solely on government insurances.. we probably could not remain in business as a for profit entity.
On the flip side.. if we only relied on private insurances.. we probably could not remain in business as a for profit entity. And that's because while private pay has better rates, government insurance has way more patients. And so its a compromise between volume, and payment rate.

One possible option in the future for us is to sell out a larger portion of our business.. and then go to concierge cash only service for only those things in healthcare that are profitable.


Oh.. and I looked at your article. their are issues with pharma since the government does not negotiate for drug prices. BUT on other procedures.. the government most certainly swings a big negotiating stick at what providers get paid. And that has been going on since the 1990's. And private insurance rates, generally follow the government rates (as I have shown) so they get advantage of that giant negotiating power.

AS to pharma.. one of the reasons that places like Britain etc.. can enjoy such lower prices.. is because the US basically subsidizes those prices with our higher payment rates.
 
Last edited:
Soopairik said:
Please tell me whether or not the Great Depression or the 2008 Financial Crisis was solved through simply "waiting it out."
Click to expand...

Yes.. both were solved by waiting it out.

the great depression was solved when the US ramped up after getting into world war ii.

The 2008 financial crisis was solved when the economy corrected itself after the mortgage bubble burst.
 
jaeger19 said:
All of the above.

Most procedures are "insurance paid". Most people have insurance.

So.. if you have insurance.. you have a contracted rate that the insurance will pay. EVEN if you have a high deductible, and you are paying "out of pocket".. you only have to pay to that contracted rate.. which is considerably lower than charges. (this is why.. it would be better without insurance argument is pretty much pure bunk).

If you don't have insurance, you will generally have to pay the charge rate (which is much higher), unless the provider can figure out how to give you a cash discount. It gets really tricky because insurance companies do not want to see you have different charges for different folks depending on insurance.

Generally.. you are way better having insurance even if you have a high deductible because generally the contracted rate will be lower than what you can get in a cash discount.

As far as who is the lowest payer?

VA is generally the lowest payer. I take it only because of the sacrifices our servicemen and women do. But I break even and in some cases lose money with VA reimbursement.

Medicaid used to be the lowest payer and a terrible payer.. usually denying payment (and for the longest time, we would not accept it. It was better just for me to decide to treat patients for FREE.. who had Medicaid rather than accept it, because I could pick and choose patients I was willing to treat for free.).

However, since OBamacare.. Medicaid rates are now comparable to Medicare in the states that we have businesses in. Different states might be different however.

When it comes to government insurance.. they are all the lowest payers in general. And yes.. to some extent private insurances make up the difference. IF I had to subsist solely on government insurances.. we probably could not remain in business as a for profit entity.
On the flip side.. if we only relied on private insurances.. we probably could not remain in business as a for profit entity. And that's because while private pay has better rates, government insurance has way more patients. And so its a compromise between volume, and payment rate.

One possible option in the future for us is to sell out a larger portion of our business.. and then go to concierge cash only service for only those things in healthcare that are profitable.


Oh.. and I looked at your article. their are issues with pharma since the government does not negotiate for drug prices. BUT on other procedures.. the government most certainly swings a big negotiating stick at what providers get paid. And that has been going on since the 1990's. And private insurance rates, generally follow the government rates (as I have shown) so they get advantage of that giant negotiating power.

AS to pharma.. one of the reasons that places like Britain etc.. can enjoy such lower prices.. is because the US basically subsidizes those prices with our higher payment rates.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the insurance companies have us by the short hairs as no one dares to be without health insurance of some sort. Without it, the patient pays the inflated rate, which would bankrupt most individuals in one hospital stay. I saw one bill for $17,000 for an angiogram, which, of course, was trimmed down to whatever the insurance had negotiated with the provider. Had we not had insurance, then the bill would have been for the full amount.

and, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, we do pay the price set by the companies. They claim that it's needed for R and D, but the fact of the matter is that more is spent on marketing than on R and D. Are we subsidizing foreign countries by selling drugs there more cheaply than we do domestically? Maybe, if the drugs were actually developed in the US, which is the assumption. If we didn't sell those drugs to foreign nations, it's hard to see how the drug companies would profit. The price of production, after all, is still a lot less than the cost of the drug even in Canada. They also profit from volume, which is greater due to exportation.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It sounds like the insurance companies have us by the short hairs as no one dares to be without health insurance of some sort. .
Click to expand...

Yes and no. See.. if no one had insurance.. then procedures like an angiogram would not exist. That's because the number of people that have angiograms.. is not enough volume to justify having an angiogram machine in most hospitals. Only because insurance can pool your money.. with someone elses money who is NOT using the insurance... can rare but highly valuable procedures exist financially. Without insurance.. only those procedures that are either high volume, or are really cheap to do would exist. That rare case that needs something like a ventilator would not exist.

Our system cost more.. because we like easy access to such high technology/expensive procedures. more so than other countries. The US doesn't like waiting.. and we don't like hearing the government tell us that we are "too old" or whatever reason for not qualifying. And we like choosing who we go to. Ironically.. we don't tolerate the level of inequality in healthcare that most other countries will tolerate.
The Medicaid patient is being treated in the same hospital.. in the room with the CEO and getting the same services.

In other countries.. the Medicaid patient would be in a room with other Medicaid patients.. getting less care.. and the CEO would have their own private room, more therapy, more services etc.

We don't tolerate that here in the us much.

SO.. the upshot is that insurance provides a very valuable service to the customer and to healthcare.. the problem is that the insurance companies have done an excellent job of controlling the conversation. Over and over you hear about "the cost of healthcare".. well.. most people don't pay for healthcare.. they pay for HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. its the insurance companies that actually pay the healthcare... so when its lower.. and there are plenty of things that have lowered the reimbursement to providers in the last couple of decades.. the insurance companies.. say.. "thank you very much".. and they pocket the profits.

The insurance market has gotten out of control... in fact most people don't realize that anti trust laws.. DO NOT APPLY TO THEM. they are allowed by law to have a monopoly. The assumption has been that .. if we lowered their costs.. (i.e. lowered the cost of healthcare).. they would magnanimously lower the cost to us for healthcare insurance. Instead.. they did what any business would do in their situation... they took the extra profit.. rather than simply pass along the savings.

and, when it comes to pharmaceuticals, we do pay the price set by the companies. They claim that it's needed for R and D, but the fact of the matter is that more is spent on marketing than on R and D
Click to expand...

Yeah.. but that's really not a valid way to look at it. so what? They spend more on marketing on R and D? So what? To pay for that R and D.. they need to SELL DRUGS... and the only way they can sell drugs is to market them. And in the US.. where the consumer drives healthcare more.. rather than the government insurance.. that marketing is more effective. So the truth is.. a lot of drugs make it to the market because the US pays more.. and pays earlier.. and only when the drug has been found to be cheap enough.. THEN other countries adopt that drug.

So the truth is.. we do subsidize the R and D because we pay more.
 
Are we subsidizing foreign countries by selling drugs there more cheaply than we do domestically? Maybe, if the drugs were actually developed in the US, which is the assumption. If we didn't sell those drugs to foreign nations, it's hard to see how the drug companies would profit. The price of production, after all, is still a lot less than the cost of the drug even in Canada. They also profit from volume, which is greater due to exportation.
Click to expand...

Well its simply how business runs. You can buy a lot of things outside the US for less than what you pay in the US for it. Its about demand and supply.

Okay.. lets say that you have a car business.

At the end of the day.. you need to make a profit. What each car costs.. how much you get..etc... all that matters quite a bit less to you.. than at the end of the day.. how much profit you make.

So lets say.. all you have is ford trucks to sell.. one type of ford truck.

overall.. the cost of the ford truck to the company is 5000 per truck.

So in America.. because of demand.. you can sell that truck for 20,000 per truck.

In mexico.. because of demand (which is lower.. because people don't have the wages).. you can sell the truck for 10,000. So you sell that truck for 10,000 in mexico.

In Venezuela.. because of demand.. *(which is lower. because of wages etc).. you can sell that truck for 7,000.. so you sell that truck for 7,000 in venezual.

Now in some south African country.. you don't even bother marketing that truck there.. because they can't afford it.. there is no profit to be made. So the few richer people in that country have to buy it in another country and ship it into that area.

Now.. someone say.. well.. but but.. what if in America.. we only paid 7,000 dollar for that truck? Well.. at the end of the day.. the TOTAL profit might be just so low.. that it would not be worth selling that truck at all.

the fact that the us is able to pay more.. and willing to pay more.. makes it possible for them to offer the truck in other countries at a lower price.

That happens with drugs. In fact.. what will happen is that a drug will get marketing in the US.. and only until the cost of production gets low enough.. OR the US market grows enough that there is enough profit... will the pharmaceutical company be willing to sell to another country at a discounted rate.

I gave the example of cancer treatment in the UK vs the US. What you found is that one of the reasons for the difference in survival is that it took longer for the drug to get approved in the UK... and that delay was likely because the UK would not approve the drug until the pharma company producing the drug.. could get the price down enough for the UK.
 
jaeger19 said:
Well its simply how business runs. You can buy a lot of things outside the US for less than what you pay in the US for it. Its about demand and supply.

Okay.. lets say that you have a car business.

At the end of the day.. you need to make a profit. What each car costs.. how much you get..etc... all that matters quite a bit less to you.. than at the end of the day.. how much profit you make.

So lets say.. all you have is ford trucks to sell.. one type of ford truck.

overall.. the cost of the ford truck to the company is 5000 per truck.

So in America.. because of demand.. you can sell that truck for 20,000 per truck.

In mexico.. because of demand (which is lower.. because people don't have the wages).. you can sell the truck for 10,000. So you sell that truck for 10,000 in mexico.

In Venezuela.. because of demand.. *(which is lower. because of wages etc).. you can sell that truck for 7,000.. so you sell that truck for 7,000 in venezual.

Now in some south African country.. you don't even bother marketing that truck there.. because they can't afford it.. there is no profit to be made. So the few richer people in that country have to buy it in another country and ship it into that area.

Now.. someone say.. well.. but but.. what if in America.. we only paid 7,000 dollar for that truck? Well.. at the end of the day.. the TOTAL profit might be just so low.. that it would not be worth selling that truck at all.

the fact that the us is able to pay more.. and willing to pay more.. makes it possible for them to offer the truck in other countries at a lower price.

That happens with drugs. In fact.. what will happen is that a drug will get marketing in the US.. and only until the cost of production gets low enough.. OR the US market grows enough that there is enough profit... will the pharmaceutical company be willing to sell to another country at a discounted rate.

I gave the example of cancer treatment in the UK vs the US. What you found is that one of the reasons for the difference in survival is that it took longer for the drug to get approved in the UK... and that delay was likely because the UK would not approve the drug until the pharma company producing the drug.. could get the price down enough for the UK.
Click to expand...

There are several different pickup trucks to be had. If Ford tried to sell a truck that Chevy had for half the price, they wouldn't be able to sell it at all. In the case of pharmaceuticals, there is a lack of competition. The company that develops the drug has a monopoly. Even if it isn't a new drug, companies will corner the market and then raise the price astronomically. Look at the Epi Pen, for example.

How much longer are we going to be able to afford a health care system that costs around nine thousand dollars per person on average, I wonder. We must have the latest and the greatest, OK, then, let's find a way to pay for it. As it is now, the cost of our health care is bankrupting us.

And, while cancer cure rates may be better, there are other indications that our health care is no better than what they have in other nations, where the overall cost is half or less what we pay.

Yes, it is the cost of health insurance that is out of control. That's what we're paying, and it's a part of the overall cost of the health care system. Separating it out and saying, well we don't pay so much for health care procedures, but we pay more for health insurance is not really addressing the issue of overall costs.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yes.. both were solved by waiting it out.

the great depression was solved when the US ramped up after getting into world war ii.

The 2008 financial crisis was solved when the economy corrected itself after the mortgage bubble burst.
Click to expand...

And you think the New Deal did absolutely nothing to help the Great Depression?
 
Dittohead not! said:
There are several different pickup trucks to be had. If Ford tried to sell a truck that Chevy had for half the price, they wouldn't be able to sell it at all. In the case of pharmaceuticals, there is a lack of competition. The company that develops the drug has a monopoly. Even if it isn't a new drug, companies will corner the market and then raise the price astronomically. Look at the Epi Pen, for example.
.
Click to expand...

Actually there is competition in pharmaceuticals. They get limited protection unlike other companies and their patents. their patent protections only last a number of years in which they have to recoup their money. And several of those years are usually taken up doing FDA trials etc.

How much longer are we going to be able to afford a health care system that costs around nine thousand dollars per person on average, I wonder. We must have the latest and the greatest, OK, then, let's find a way to pay for it. As it is now, the cost of our health care is bankrupting us.
Click to expand...

There is the sad irony of your post. how much longer can we afford a healthcare system that costs so much? The answer is FOREVER. And that's because all those dollars STAY RIGHT HERE. Healthcare is a huge part of our economy. That's whats crazy about your post. Would you say "how much longer can we afford these cars.. how much longer can we afford these houses, how much can longer can we afford....".. Nope.. because cars, houses, etc.. are considered part of the economy. Our country bails out the auto industry. Our country bailed out the banking industry. Yet the healthcare industry..which is about 1/4 of our economy? We want to kill it. Does that make sense?

You are talking good jobs... jobs that are pretty darn hard to outsource. Jobs that spread a lot of money around and are hard to automate. AND a good portion of those companies.. ARE NON PROFITS.

Sorry sir, But the healthcare industry is not bankrupting our country.. its actually keeping it afloat economically.

Yes, it is the cost of health insurance that is out of control. That's what we're paying, and it's a part of the overall cost of the health care system. Separating it out and saying, well we don't pay so much for health care procedures, but we pay more for health insurance is not really addressing the issue of overall costs.
Click to expand...

And that's your intellectual disconnect. Healthcare costs have been addressed.. as I have pointed out. Healthcare insurance costs have not.
 
Soopairik said:
And you think the New Deal did absolutely nothing to help the Great Depression?
Click to expand...

Help the Great Depression? No..

Help alleviate the effects on the poor and middle class? Yes.

But ultimately.. it was WWII that ended the "Helped" the great depression.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually there is competition in pharmaceuticals. They get limited protection unlike other companies and their patents. their patent protections only last a number of years in which they have to recoup their money. And several of those years are usually taken up doing FDA trials etc.



There is the sad irony of your post. how much longer can we afford a healthcare system that costs so much? The answer is FOREVER. And that's because all those dollars STAY RIGHT HERE. Healthcare is a huge part of our economy. That's whats crazy about your post. Would you say "how much longer can we afford these cars.. how much longer can we afford these houses, how much can longer can we afford....".. Nope.. because cars, houses, etc.. are considered part of the economy. Our country bails out the auto industry. Our country bailed out the banking industry. Yet the healthcare industry..which is about 1/4 of our economy? We want to kill it. Does that make sense?

You are talking good jobs... jobs that are pretty darn hard to outsource. Jobs that spread a lot of money around and are hard to automate. AND a good portion of those companies.. ARE NON PROFITS.

Sorry sir, But the healthcare industry is not bankrupting our country.. its actually keeping it afloat economically.



And that's your intellectual disconnect. Healthcare costs have been addressed.. as I have pointed out. Healthcare insurance costs have not.
Click to expand...

By that logic, we should be paying teachers, police, fire fighters at least double what they're making now. The money stays right here, after all, and contributes to the economy.

From the consumers' point of view, health insurance premiums are a part of overall health care costs.
 
Dittohead not! said:
By that logic, we should be paying teachers, police, fire fighters at least double what they're making now. The money stays right here, after all, and contributes to the economy.

From the consumers' point of view, health insurance premiums are a part of overall health care costs.
Click to expand...

Actually when it comes to teachers.. yes we should. Probably the police as well. If we did, we would probably get the best candidates for these jobs instead of losing them to other more lucrative fields.. so we would end up with better education which would most likely spur our economy.

And we would end up with a police force that understood "protect and serve".. quite a bit better.

From the consumers point of view.. health insurance premiums ARE NOT a part of overall healthcare costs.

That's the fact I have been pointing out to you. You just don;t want to buy into it. I suppose you think that when an oil rig pumps oil out of the ground on Thursday.. and the price of gas is 3.00 a gallon.
and on Friday.. that same pump pumps oil out of the ground .. and the price has jumped to 4,00 a gallon.. it must be because the cost of pumping that oil jumped from Thursday to Friday.

Well it didn't and its not in healthcare. Demand and monopolization are pushing the healthcare insurance premiums.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually when it comes to teachers.. yes we should. Probably the police as well. If we did, we would probably get the best candidates for these jobs instead of losing them to other more lucrative fields.. so we would end up with better education which would most likely spur our economy.

And we would end up with a police force that understood "protect and serve".. quite a bit better.

From the consumers point of view.. health insurance premiums ARE NOT a part of overall healthcare costs.

That's the fact I have been pointing out to you. You just don;t want to buy into it. I suppose you think that when an oil rig pumps oil out of the ground on Thursday.. and the price of gas is 3.00 a gallon.
and on Friday.. that same pump pumps oil out of the ground .. and the price has jumped to 4,00 a gallon.. it must be because the cost of pumping that oil jumped from Thursday to Friday.

Well it didn't and its not in healthcare. Demand and monopolization are pushing the healthcare insurance premiums.
Click to expand...

Health insurance premiums are a part of what we spend on health care. How could they not be? You pay, or your employer pays, sky high premiums for what? Because you don't dare be without health insurance, of course. What else are they for rather than to have access to health care?

We could save a ton of money on health insurance if every citizen were covered by catastrophic cost health insurance. It there were an upper limit to health care costs of say, 5% of the patients' annual income, then no one would need health insurance.

Of course, such a plan can't get past the health insurance lobby, as that would end their profitable business.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Health insurance premiums are a part of what we spend on health care. How could they not be? You pay, or your employer pays, sky high premiums for what? Because you don't dare be without health insurance, of course. What else are they for rather than to have access to health care?

We could save a ton of money on health insurance if every citizen were covered by catastrophic cost health insurance. It there were an upper limit to health care costs of say, 5% of the patients' annual income, then no one would need health insurance.

Of course, such a plan can't get past the health insurance lobby, as that would end their profitable business.
Click to expand...

I pay sky high premiums because 1. I own a healthcare business and the demand for healthcare is higher among healthcare employees. In addition.. there is money in healthcare.. thus you have paired demand.. with the money to pay for it. And thus my healthcare insurance through my medical business is sky high. Despite the fact that my utilization of services by my employees is lower than the average public with health insurance.

In addition I own other businesses in other industries. And when I purchase employer based insurance in those industries.. the cost FOR THE SAME POLICY.. is significantly cheaper. Why? Because there is less demand for healthcare in those industries. Many of my competitors in those businesses do not offer healthcare insurance for their employees. Thus the insurance companies know that I do not have to provide healthcare to attract employees and thus there is less demand for healthcare insurance. So.. my premiums are lower. EVEN THOUGH.. my utilization of services is a bit higher than healthcare workers. (most likely because I get new employees that have not had healthcare insurance before).

So you explain to me.. if its all about costs of healthcare.. why my insurance premium varies based on industry.. regardless of utilization?

By the way.. my corporate headquarters is in a state that one insurance company has 77% of the market. that's right 77% of the market.

Then tell me about "competition"..

We could save a ton of money on health insurance if every citizen were covered by catastrophic cost health insurance. It there were an upper limit to health care costs of say, 5% of the patients' annual income, then no one would need health insurance.
Click to expand...

And you would see a ton of healthcare services disappear as they would not be profitable.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The US famously has the most expensive yet inefficient healthcare in the developed world,but even I was shocked to discover that an American woman is three times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman in the UK.

Click to expand...

Those women died to make Capitalism great. Let us not dishonor their sacrifice by resorting to socialized medicine and causing more women to survive childbirth.

A person's right to live should be directly tied into whether they chose the right Megachurch to be a member of, or how much wealth they have. Long live economic natural selection!

Wait, no, I'm giving Conservatives ideas here. Forget I wrote any of that..... :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom