What I've Been Saying All Along About Health Care

MrWonka · Mar 14, 2018

Moderate Right said:
That's exactly my argument with taxes. It is ridiculous that 47% of Americans pay absolutely zero federal income taxes (with some even getting refundable credits) and that percentage will be going up even higher with the new tax bill. So, I'll steal your line "That's why it's so important to make sure everyone is at least paying something. Even if they can't afford a full monthly premium if they're paying something that's better than nothing".

That's a completely different argument. There's an old saying in the legal world.... "possession is 9/10ths of the law." Well, then what good is the law if you don't have any possessions? The truth is that as much as rich people bitch about the government about 90% of what the government does is protect wealthy people from poor people. The #1 thing that the government does is to protect property rights and to make sure that all transfers of property is done threw mutually agreed terms. That heavily heavily heavily benefits the wealthy who own the vast majority of the property.

If a homeless guy has his cardboard box shelter stolen from him the police aren't going to do **** about it. But if you come home and find homeless people are squatting in your house the police will show up and throw them out. If you're poor you not only don't benefit from the government, it actually limits your ability to survive on your own. You can't just walk off into the wilderness and hunt for food, or cut down trees for a home. Virtually all land is owned by someone else, and you can't access it without paying them for it.

With healthcare, we all benefit roughly the same from it. At a minimum, we don't know who will need it most up front when we pay health insurance premiums. A person can only be so healthy, they cannot be more dead. But wealthy people can be exponentially more wealthy than the poor. They can, therefore, benefit exponentially more from the services provided by the government. It only makes rational sense then that the wealth pay exponentially more to fund the government.

People like you view welfare as an entitlement. I view it as defense spending. By making sure the poor have what they need to survive you make them less likely to resort to violence to obtain what they need. Less likely to steal from you so they can eat. Less likely to kill you and take over your home so they can have a warm bed. People like yourself have been living in a civilized society for so long you've forgotten why we built them in the first place. You take your property rights for granted, but without the government, the only property you could claim to own would be that which you could defend with your own two hands. That ain't much.

Just ask yourself how much of your wealth and property would you be able to keep if the government disappeared tomorrow? No more police. No military. The deed to your house? Worthless. The title on your car? Burn it. The cash in your wallet? It's just green paper now. Good luck getting it out of the Bank in the first place. There's no more FDIC.

jaeger19 · Mar 14, 2018

MrWonka said:
No, what makes them expensive is that you also need to have equipment and training to handle non-emergency stuff. All an emergency room staff should need to be able to do is emergency stuff. Stop bleeding, stabilize, get them breathing, keep heart pumping... it's the fact that they need to be trained for all of that, and for things like diagnosing bronchitis. Medicine is full of specialists for this very reason. Mastery of all medical knowledge is incredibly difficult. These patients should be going to a primary care doctor who can diagnose the basics and send them to a specialist if needs be. But the poor can't afford the specialists so emergency rooms get packed with all kinds of people that don't belong them.

This requires emergency rooms to be overstaffed and capable of doing all kinds of things they really shouldn't have to do.

Yeah no. there is little equipment that is needed to handle non emergency stuff nor little in the way of "extra training" .

Medicine has specialists.. but physicians all start with the General practitioner or primary care doctor.. education. The same with nurse practitioners, and PA's. So no extra or expensive training is needed.

Again.. it really doesn't increase the cost.

jaeger19 · Mar 14, 2018

Sampson Simpson said:
And with universal healthcare you would get rid of all that. .

Nope.. sorry but universal healthcare does not get "rid of all that"..

in fact.. most countries have private insurance companies AND universal healthcare.. Canada, France, Australia, Germany, and so on .

Sampson Simpson · Mar 14, 2018

MrWonka said:
That's a completely different argument. There's an old saying in the legal world.... "possession is 9/10ths of the law." Well, then what good is the law if you don't have any possessions? The truth is that as much as rich people bitch about the government about 90% of what the government does is protect wealthy people from poor people. The #1 thing that the government does is to protect property rights and to make sure that all transfers of property is done threw mutually agreed terms. That heavily heavily heavily benefits the wealthy who own the vast majority of the property.

If a homeless guy has his cardboard box shelter stolen from him the police aren't going to do **** about it. But if you come home and find homeless people are squatting in your house the police will show up and throw them out. If you're poor you not only don't benefit from the government, it actually limits your ability to survive on your own. You can't just walk off into the wilderness and hunt for food, or cut down trees for a home. Virtually all land is owned by someone else, and you can't access it without paying them for it.

With healthcare, we all benefit roughly the same from it. At a minimum, we don't know who will need it most up front when we pay health insurance premiums. A person can only be so healthy, they cannot be more dead. But wealthy people can be exponentially more wealthy than the poor. They can, therefore, benefit exponentially more from the services provided by the government. It only makes rational sense then that the wealth pay exponentially more to fund the government.

People like you view welfare as an entitlement. I view it as defense spending. By making sure the poor have what they need to survive you make them less likely to resort to violence to obtain what they need. Less likely to steal from you so they can eat. Less likely to kill you and take over your home so they can have a warm bed. People like yourself have been living in a civilized society for so long you've forgotten why we built them in the first place. You take your property rights for granted, but without the government, the only property you could claim to own would be that which you could defend with your own two hands. That ain't much.

Just ask yourself how much of your wealth and property would you be able to keep if the government disappeared tomorrow? No more police. No military. The deed to your house? Worthless. The title on your car? Burn it. The cash in your wallet? It's just green paper now. Good luck getting it out of the Bank in the first place. There's no more FDIC.

I've always made that argument and its true. Not just protecting properties, they use the infrastructure more. They may travel more and benefit from TSA, FAA, etc. They use the roads more for their businesses, the use the courts in their businesses, and they have more access to government officials and the power to get their way just because they are rich

Sampson Simpson · Mar 14, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Nope.. sorry but universal healthcare does not get "rid of all that"..

in fact.. most countries have private insurance companies AND universal healthcare.. Canada, France, Australia, Germany, and so on .

OK, didn't really mean all of that, of course there are administrative fees. But a hell of a lot can be saved, as this link shows

A Comparison of Hospital Administrative Costs in Eight Nations: U.S. Costs Exceed All Others by Far - The Commonwealth Fund

Administrative costs account for 25 percent of total U.S. hospital spending, according to a new study that compares these costs across eight nations. The United States had the highest administrative costs; Scotland and Canada had the lowest. Reducing U.S. per capita spending for hospital administration to Scottish or Canadian levels would have saved more than $150 billion in 2011.

In countries where hospitals receive global, lump-sum budgets, garnering operating funds requires little administrative work. Per-patient billing, on the other hand, requires additional clerical and management staff and special information technology systems. In countries where there are multiple payers, as in the United States, billing is even more complex, since each hospital must negotiate payment rates separately with each payer and conform with a variety of requirements and billing procedures.

jaeger19 · Mar 14, 2018

Sampson Simpson said:
OK, didn't really mean all of that, of course there are administrative fees. But a hell of a lot can be saved, as this link shows

A Comparison of Hospital Administrative Costs in Eight Nations: U.S. Costs Exceed All Others by Far - The Commonwealth Fund

Sure.. but then you have to talk to medicare and Medicaid.. and the VA.. all GOVERNMENT programs... they have some of the highest administrative costs for medical providers to deal with. Especially Medicaid and the VA. In some cases.. its cheaper to treat a Medicaid patient for free.. because you the expense you go through to end up with so little in reimbursement it ends up costing you more than if you just treated for free.

And we have tried some of those "lump sum budgets" schemes.. it was started under obamacare.. called "bundled payments".

So far. the administrative hassles are way more. Sure you less in billing expenses.. but in managing the patients and coordinating care and so on so that you make sure you meet the criterias for maximal payment? More expensive. and at the end of the day.. there is still going to be a lot of reporting..

Sorry but no insurance or government is going to pay me 1 million lump sum to keep our community healthy.. and not have a bunch of procedures or lists of procedures that I provided. ultimately.. its still going to come down to fee for service.

.

Moderate Right · Mar 14, 2018

Sampson Simpson said:
No, its trading hundreds of bureaucracies with different rules and law with one universal system. That's a hell of a lot easier

That is not healthcare. People would get to the point of catastrophe because they couldn't afford to pay for routine checkups and treatment and thus wouldnt' go to the doctor. Having food or a house, vs going to the doctor. It's an easy choice for many. So something that could have been minor turns into catastrophe.

Those insurances are basically scams that provide nothing, and don't provide actual healthcare.

Yes, easier but not less expensive. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy. Didn't you read the article?

Moderate Right · Mar 14, 2018

MrWonka said:
That's a completely different argument. There's an old saying in the legal world.... "possession is 9/10ths of the law." Well, then what good is the law if you don't have any possessions? The truth is that as much as rich people bitch about the government about 90% of what the government does is protect wealthy people from poor people. The #1 thing that the government does is to protect property rights and to make sure that all transfers of property is done threw mutually agreed terms. That heavily heavily heavily benefits the wealthy who own the vast majority of the property.

If a homeless guy has his cardboard box shelter stolen from him the police aren't going to do **** about it. But if you come home and find homeless people are squatting in your house the police will show up and throw them out. If you're poor you not only don't benefit from the government, it actually limits your ability to survive on your own. You can't just walk off into the wilderness and hunt for food, or cut down trees for a home. Virtually all land is owned by someone else, and you can't access it without paying them for it.

With healthcare, we all benefit roughly the same from it. At a minimum, we don't know who will need it most up front when we pay health insurance premiums. A person can only be so healthy, they cannot be more dead. But wealthy people can be exponentially more wealthy than the poor. They can, therefore, benefit exponentially more from the services provided by the government. It only makes rational sense then that the wealth pay exponentially more to fund the government.

People like you view welfare as an entitlement. I view it as defense spending. By making sure the poor have what they need to survive you make them less likely to resort to violence to obtain what they need. Less likely to steal from you so they can eat. Less likely to kill you and take over your home so they can have a warm bed. People like yourself have been living in a civilized society for so long you've forgotten why we built them in the first place. You take your property rights for granted, but without the government, the only property you could claim to own would be that which you could defend with your own two hands. That ain't much.

Just ask yourself how much of your wealth and property would you be able to keep if the government disappeared tomorrow? No more police. No military. The deed to your house? Worthless. The title on your car? Burn it. The cash in your wallet? It's just green paper now. Good luck getting it out of the Bank in the first place. There's no more FDIC.

The very same argument.

SirGareth · Mar 14, 2018

MrWonka said:
The problem isn't that wages are too high. The problem is that about 80% of the country is paying those wages while 100% are using the services. So long as people can choose not to get health insurance, and insurance companies can choose who they cover, the rest of us that do have health insurance end up footing the bill for those without which radically increases our costs.

That's why it's so important to make sure everyone is at least paying something. Even if they can't afford a full monthly premium if they're paying something that's better than nothing.

Why don't the people whose services they use charge them "something" for their fee

Greenbeard · Mar 14, 2018

MrWonka said:
That is why I prefer a hybrid system myself personally. But you have to address the reality that many doctors and hospitals charge a lot do to other extravagances that may not really be necessary, and they get away with it because most people are just paying co-pays. Fancy hospitals loaded with artwork, extra nurses, and employees, extra tests that aren't really necessary.

There's a fascinating set of questions here but the underlying realities don't seem to have sunken in for most folks when we talk about costs.

More than anything else, health care is a service and the cost of delivering it is labor. Take California: the only state that legislates minimum nurse-to-patient ratios, thereby driving up the amount of labor Californians need to buy and thus the cost of care (good for the nursing unions!). But they're exploring single-payer which is designed to create a monopsony for buying that labor to, among other things, smash the power of the unions and "bargain"/drive down the cost of labor that's driving health care spending. And one of the main political forces behind that movement is a nursing union! That's fascinating. But it reveals that for many people, even those one might expect to know better, health care costs remain a vilified abstraction, not a paycheck or a convenient facility.

The moment when the amorphous "costs" term becomes concrete things we're all collectively paying for is the moment that the uphill political climb begins.

Someone on here once argued to me that VA hospitals should set the benchmark for what care "should" cost. But when reminded that the VA has experienced some highly publicized capacity issues and deficiencies in recent years he shrugged it off by saying the VA is underfunded. Which means the care there should be costing us more! Thus the danger of proclaiming what things "should" cost.

One of the most expensive "fancy hospitals" in my state was profiled not too long ago for engaging in some cost-cutting soul-searching:

1.

Even though, as STAT writes, not even the mattress pads were spared, at the end of the day the big ticket item wasn't artwork it was people.

Similarly, we need to grapple with the question of what to do about cities where health care is anchoring the economy or job market even as other traditional segments of the economy have declined. Is health care there a problem to be solved?

2.

This is where the conversation needs to go if it's ever going to become meaningful.

Moderate Right · Mar 15, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Sure.. but then you have to talk to medicare and Medicaid.. and the VA.. all GOVERNMENT programs... they have some of the highest administrative costs for medical providers to deal with. Especially Medicaid and the VA. In some cases.. its cheaper to treat a Medicaid patient for free.. because you the expense you go through to end up with so little in reimbursement it ends up costing you more than if you just treated for free.

And we have tried some of those "lump sum budgets" schemes.. it was started under obamacare.. called "bundled payments".

So far. the administrative hassles are way more. Sure you less in billing expenses.. but in managing the patients and coordinating care and so on so that you make sure you meet the criterias for maximal payment? More expensive. and at the end of the day.. there is still going to be a lot of reporting..

Sorry but no insurance or government is going to pay me 1 million lump sum to keep our community healthy.. and not have a bunch of procedures or lists of procedures that I provided. ultimately.. its still going to come down to fee for service.

.

I know you are fairly educated in the medical field so a question popped into my mind that I'd like your opinion on. Why are there two separate health care programs from the federal government, one called Medicare, and one called the VA? And, just for the sake of debate, what would happen if we were to combine the two into just one program, as in everyone getting benefits from the VA would automatically be enrolled in Medicare and eliminate the VA or everyone receiving Medicare would automatically be eligible for the VA and Medicare would be eliminated? Many people want single payer for everyone so this is kind of the reasoning for my question. If we couldn't even combine Medicare and the VA into one program then how would that relate to starting a program called Medicare for all? I do realize that veterans healthcare comes with it's own set of health conditions, etc that are unique to veterans and not the general population but, then again, a lot of what the VA does is normal health conditions that average people experience as well.

jaeger19 · Mar 16, 2018

Moderate Right said:
I know you are fairly educated in the medical field so a question popped into my mind that I'd like your opinion on. Why are there two separate health care programs from the federal government, one called Medicare, and one called the VA? And, just for the sake of debate, what would happen if we were to combine the two into just one program, as in everyone getting benefits from the VA would automatically be enrolled in Medicare and eliminate the VA or everyone receiving Medicare would automatically be eligible for the VA and Medicare would be eliminated? Many people want single payer for everyone so this is kind of the reasoning for my question. If we couldn't even combine Medicare and the VA into one program then how would that relate to starting a program called Medicare for all? I do realize that veterans healthcare comes with it's own set of health conditions, etc that are unique to veterans and not the general population but, then again, a lot of what the VA does is normal health conditions that average people experience as well.

Actually there are basically three programs.. The VA, Medicare.. and Medicaid.

A lot has to do with politics, cost and who is doing the paying.

So with medicare.. people have paid in their whole lives.. you can't get it without paying in a certain time frame etc to the system. AND its a huge voting block of people.. including a lot of rich and powerful people. thus medicare has the best insurance. Low deductibles, low co pay, little pre authorization, lots of choice... and so on. I have a patient that is a multi millionaire and he has had two total hips and two total knees.

then you have VA. Now.. they get that for "free"..(they have had to serve).. but otherwise its mostly perceived to be paid by general taxes. And it represents a much smaller voting group. So it has the least healthcare probably of the two. Longer wait times, only certain facilities.. barriers to care etc.

then you have Medicaid: They represent the middle group.. they get it for free.. but they also represent a much larger voting group. So it has the middle line of care between the VA and Medicare. generally. It often covers a bit less than the VA.. but it has more choice, less administrative hassles, etc.

So.. lets say you raised the VA up to Medicare? then it would put a strain on medicare and the folks on medicare would not like to see their deductibles go up , etc and that would be reflective in politics. .

Lets say you decrease Medicare to the VA? Then people that had medicare would see a definite decrease in their care.. that would be reflected in politics

Moderate Right · Mar 16, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Actually there are basically three programs.. The VA, Medicare.. and Medicaid.

A lot has to do with politics, cost and who is doing the paying.

So with medicare.. people have paid in their whole lives.. you can't get it without paying in a certain time frame etc to the system. AND its a huge voting block of people.. including a lot of rich and powerful people. thus medicare has the best insurance. Low deductibles, low co pay, little pre authorization, lots of choice... and so on. I have a patient that is a multi millionaire and he has had two total hips and two total knees.

then you have VA. Now.. they get that for "free"..(they have had to serve).. but otherwise its mostly perceived to be paid by general taxes. And it represents a much smaller voting group. So it has the least healthcare probably of the two. Longer wait times, only certain facilities.. barriers to care etc.

then you have Medicaid: They represent the middle group.. they get it for free.. but they also represent a much larger voting group. So it has the middle line of care between the VA and Medicare. generally. It often covers a bit less than the VA.. but it has more choice, less administrative hassles, etc.

So.. lets say you raised the VA up to Medicare? then it would put a strain on medicare and the folks on medicare would not like to see their deductibles go up , etc and that would be reflective in politics. .

Lets say you decrease Medicare to the VA? Then people that had medicare would see a definite decrease in their care.. that would be reflected in politics

I was interested in your perspective because my train of thought is if we can't even combine these things now then how in the hell are we ever going to get to Medicare for all? I left Medicaid off because it is kind of part state and part federal.

jaeger19 · Mar 16, 2018

Moderate Right said:
I was interested in your perspective because my train of thought is if we can't even combine these things now then how in the hell are we ever going to get to Medicare for all? I left Medicaid off because it is kind of part state and part federal.

Well.. the reason we are going to have problems with "medicare for all".. is a lot of what Greenbeard is saying.

On one hand.. everyone loves medicare.

On the other hand.. everone "wants"..lower healthcare spending.

Medicare for all will increase healthcare spending. SO.. if you want to get everyone on medicare for all and maintain the current benefit level.. it will cost a whole lot more..

OR you are going to have to decrease the healthcare spending.. by reducing the current benefit level for medicare.

Deuce · Mar 18, 2018

"Health care is expensive because the prices are high"

First off, no ****, sherlock.

Second, maaaaybe that has something to do with the profit motive involved, combined with the fact that health care isn't actually a free market and never will be.

Deuce · Mar 18, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Well.. the reason we are going to have problems with "medicare for all".. is a lot of what Greenbeard is saying.

On one hand.. everyone loves medicare.

On the other hand.. everone "wants"..lower healthcare spending.

Medicare for all will increase healthcare spending. SO.. if you want to get everyone on medicare for all and maintain the current benefit level.. it will cost a whole lot more..

OR you are going to have to decrease the healthcare spending.. by reducing the current benefit level for medicare.

This assumes that the price would not go down under such a system. I disagree.

Moderate Right · Mar 18, 2018

Deuce said:
"Health care is expensive because the prices are high"

First off, no ****, sherlock.

Second, maaaaybe that has something to do with the profit motive involved, combined with the fact that health care isn't actually a free market and never will be.

So, you expect all healthcare personnel to work for no profit? Whether you like it or not, healthcare is a business and always will be. There would be no point to any "business" doing anything if they couldn't make a profit on it. Healthcare would actually be destroyed if you take the profit away.

Lursa · Mar 18, 2018

Here's a truth that some will find ugly. Those of us that do make decent incomes USE that income. Our lifestyles are based on that income. That money is all already spoken for, to where it needs to go. When my health insurance went up $300 a month (so about $500 total), that puts a dent in my lifestyle.

And that makes a big difference. I work really hard for my $ and if I didnt have horses, I could live easily and happily on half of what I make. And you know what? If I couldnt have the horses I WOULD take a much easier job that paid less and hey...maybe then qualify for some kind of tax subsidies for health care! Become a 'taker.'

When we spend it, we are supporting jobs for other people. And if we didnt spend it, then it would be going into our savings for our futures. No one offering to support us in our old age.

jaeger19 · Mar 19, 2018

Deuce said:
This assumes that the price would not go down under such a system. I disagree.

No it doesn't...

IN fact.. Greenbeard has pointed out that when you "decrease the price" what you will do will decrease the economy, decrease wages etc. Mostly to middle class folks, like nurses, X ray techs, and upper middle class like doctors, and then more unemployment with aides, secretaries, hospital billers, housekeeping etc.

So what you will see is more consolidation of services, fewer choices for people, especially in less profitable areas of medicine, longer wait times, less educated providers providing care.. and so on.

Mircea · Mar 19, 2018

jaeger19 said:
Actually that's not why emergency rooms are so expensive.

If you go to the emergency room for bronchitis.. its annoying.. but frankly its not expensive.

Yes, it is more expensive. It costs thousands of dollars more than going to a primary care physician or urgent care center.

Sampson Simpson said:
It's not, because Medicare and Medicaid have bargaining power. They pay less because of they have a large customer base.

Medicare and Medicaid do not have bargaining power.

Medicare pays less simply because it does, not because it negotiates lower prices.

Medicaid has no bargaining power either, since Medicaid pays private insurers.

jaeger19 · Mar 20, 2018

Mircea said:
Yes, it is more expensive. It costs thousands of dollars more than going to a primary care physician or urgent care center.

.

nope.

Tell you what.. please explain how 15 minutes of time, and writing a prescription costs more in the ER then when done by the same practitioner in a primary care or urgent center.

no more time.. same practitioner.

Medicare and Medicaid do not have bargaining power.

Medicare especially has HUGE bargaining power. That's how medicare pays less.

Medicaid has bargaining power as well.. particularly after obamacare. Its again. how they pay less.

Both pay private insurers to administer their plans.

OscarLevant · Mar 23, 2018

Moderate Right said:
Lefties always like to compare our health care system to others around the world and say that the main reason ours is more expensive is because of the middle man (insurance companies) and if we eliminated the middle man and went with a government run system then we would be similar to all other countries with government run health care. The following links are to great articles which highlight what I've been saying all along in that neither party addresses the real root causes of the high cost of US healthcare (not being the insurance companies) and that we will never solve the problem unless we tackle these root causes. We always do the top down approach instead of the bottom up approach. Like weeds in your lawn, we will never solve the problem unless we get to the roots. I hope these articles plants the seeds with our leaders of how to actually address the US health care problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...ch-on-health-care-as-other-wealthy-countries/

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.22.3.89

Gee, what I got out of those articles is, hey, let's adopt how they do it in those other countries.

Universal Health Care !

Before the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. §300e) health care industry was dominated by hospitals that were non-profit orgs, and private practice clinics were much more reasonable. As a child, I remember when doctors made house calls. After Nixon passed that act, the profit motive kicked in things have been going downhill ever since. Not talkin' about the innovation side of things, talking about costs.

"Blue Cross Blue Shield was the largest non-profit insurance company of that time. The shift from non-profit to profit happen with the introduction of HMO’s. The exodus of the indemnity plans, customary and reasonable charges was replaced with networks discounts, capitation, and required referrals. Not only did companies stop being non-profit, the shift to Wall Street thinking about shareholder profit shifted the structure of companies from mutual to stock companies entering the global market. The idea of policy owner were the only shareowner was no longer a reality. Today the policy owner who are interested in providing quality care for themselves is replaced by investor who are only interested in the bottom line" --George Soria (answering a question on Quora.com )

So, in my view, the root of the problem is the wall street takeover over health care, a shift from the non-profit hospital era before 1973 to the make as much money for share holders era that followed after the law was enacted.

After reading those articles, the gist I get is, well, they do it a certain way in those countries, so why don't we do it that way in the US. now then, of course, it will require a whole new cultural change from greed to more altruism.

Doctors who are millionaires will have to change their money motivation and be happy with living just comfortably, instead of a big mansion in Beverly Hills, maybe a nice house in the burbs will do, and this change will reflect on lower taxes if we are talking about universal health care system that they are doing in these other countries. I recall seeing Michael Moore's film, 'Sicko" and they interviewed a French doctor, and this point was beautifully illustrated.

Also, when I hear republicans argue that, if we take away the profit motive, innovation will suffer. That's not true, most innovation is done by gov grant funded universities. Repubs also argue "waiting in long lines". Well, I'm on medicare, and the other day I got a burn on my leg, called up my doc, and he took me right in, no waiting. If I call for a check up, and it's not urgent, I will go in next week. Medicare is socialism (well, it's debatable, but repubs and dems of late are calling it that, so the term has evolved over the years ), and it works beautifully. Yes, no system is perfect.

When it comes to drugs, drugs that don't make a good profit, they dont' get as much attention as those that do, and drugs that cost a zillion bucks for things like Hep C, well, let's take the profit out of it, and gov fund it, clinical trials, and make it, and then we can sell the drug a lot cheaper.

See, I say let's let capitalism do what it does best, and socialism do what it does best.

Capitalism for wants ( cars, clothes, the stuff you buy in shops and stores, services, etc )

Socialism for needs ( police, fire, education, social programs and health, etc ).

Sure, on the needs side, there are boutique items that aren't really in the needs column.
Cosmetic surgery, for example, which fall into the "wants" category. Over the counter drugs, for example. Band Aids and sundry items. And, of course, there are some grey areas that could be worked out.

holbritter · Mar 23, 2018

Moderate Right said:
Lefties always like to compare our health care system to others around the world and say that the main reason ours is more expensive is because of the middle man (insurance companies) and if we eliminated the middle man and went with a government run system then we would be similar to all other countries with government run health care. The following links are to great articles which highlight what I've been saying all along in that neither party addresses the real root causes of the high cost of US healthcare (not being the insurance companies) and that we will never solve the problem unless we tackle these root causes. We always do the top down approach instead of the bottom up approach. Like weeds in your lawn, we will never solve the problem unless we get to the roots. I hope these articles plants the seeds with our leaders of how to actually address the US health care problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...ch-on-health-care-as-other-wealthy-countries/

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.22.3.89

Yup. Healthcare is big business.

holbritter · Mar 23, 2018

MrWonka said:
Maybe you should actually try listening to liberals some time, and you'd know that this is not what we say at all.

What we've been trying to tell stupid Republicans for years is largely two things.

#1.) People without adequate health insurance still get health care. Doctors and hospitals aren't going to let someone die just because they can't afford it. In order to make up for the fact that millions of people in this country are getting free health care, doctors and hospitals have no choice, but to charge everyone else higher prices. By requiring everyone to have health insurance, and the poor to at least pay something towards it you can reduce the costs for everyone else.

#2.) A single-payer system would be able to use its massive bargaining power to force prices down. It would also use the progressive tax system to ensure that everyone is chipping in what they can so that nobody is getting a free ride.

Changing these two things would radically lower health care costs. Now, they might have some other annoying side effects, but it would definitely accomplish this goal just like it has in most other western nations.

Well, the 'stupid' Democrats would not have any of that.

Moderate Right · Mar 23, 2018

OscarLevant said:
Gee, what I got out of those articles is, hey, let's adopt how they do it in those other countries.

Universal Health Care !

Before the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. §300e) health care industry was dominated by hospitals that were non-profit orgs, and private practice clinics were much more reasonable. As a child, I remember when doctors made house calls. After Nixon passed that act, the profit motive kicked in things have been going downhill ever since. Not talkin' about the innovation side of things, talking about costs.

"Blue Cross Blue Shield was the largest non-profit insurance company of that time. The shift from non-profit to profit happen with the introduction of HMO’s. The exodus of the indemnity plans, customary and reasonable charges was replaced with networks discounts, capitation, and required referrals. Not only did companies stop being non-profit, the shift to Wall Street thinking about shareholder profit shifted the structure of companies from mutual to stock companies entering the global market. The idea of policy owner were the only shareowner was no longer a reality. Today the policy owner who are interested in providing quality care for themselves is replaced by investor who are only interested in the bottom line" --George Soria (answering a question on Quora.com )

So, in my view, the root of the problem is the wall street takeover over health care, a shift from the non-profit hospital era before 1973 to the make as much money for share holders era that followed after the law was enacted.

After reading those articles, the gist I get is, well, they do it a certain way in those countries, so why don't we do it that way in the US. now then, of course, it will require a whole new cultural change from greed to more altruism.

Doctors who are millionaires will have to change their money motivation and be happy with living just comfortably, instead of a big mansion in Beverly Hills, maybe a nice house in the burbs will do, and this change will reflect on lower taxes if we are talking about universal health care system that they are doing in these other countries. I recall seeing Michael Moore's film, 'Sicko" and they interviewed a French doctor, and this point was beautifully illustrated.

Also, when I hear republicans argue that, if we take away the profit motive, innovation will suffer. That's not true, most innovation is done by gov grant funded universities. Repubs also argue "waiting in long lines". Well, I'm on medicare, and the other day I got a burn on my leg, called up my doc, and he took me right in, no waiting. If I call for a check up, and it's not urgent, I will go in next week. Medicare is socialism (well, it's debatable, but repubs and dems of late are calling it that, so the term has evolved over the years ), and it works beautifully. Yes, no system is perfect.

When it comes to drugs, drugs that don't make a good profit, they dont' get as much attention as those that do, and drugs that cost a zillion bucks for things like Hep C, well, let's take the profit out of it, and gov fund it, clinical trials, and make it, and then we can sell the drug a lot cheaper.

See, I say let's let capitalism do what it does best, and socialism do what it does best.

Capitalism for wants ( cars, clothes, the stuff you buy in shops and stores, services, etc )

Socialism for needs ( police, fire, education, social programs and health, etc ).

Sure, on the needs side, there are boutique items that aren't really in the needs column.
Cosmetic surgery, for example, which fall into the "wants" category. Over the counter drugs, for example. Band Aids and sundry items. And, of course, there are some grey areas that could be worked out.

Boy do you have a reading comprehension problem.

What I've Been Saying All Along About Health Care

MrWonka

jaeger19

jaeger19

Sampson Simpson

Sampson Simpson

jaeger19

Moderate Right

Moderate Right

SirGareth

Greenbeard

Moderate Right

jaeger19

Moderate Right

jaeger19

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Moderate Right

Lursa

Tenacious

jaeger19

Mircea

jaeger19

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire

holbritter

holbritter

Moderate Right