AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-06-13, 16:19   Link #61
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
Ok, not all medical conditions are the same. Further, for a lot of conditions, the earlier you catch it, the quicker, cheaper, and easy it is to treat. Preventitive care is more likely to catch these problems early. Some medical conditions, if caught early require only a visit to the doctor to diagnose and medication to treat it, however, if left to progress may require far more intensive, and far more expensive treatment later. Take atherosclerosis. If caught early enough it can be treated by medication, while if left untreated it can result in a heart attack and may require bypass surgery, while still requiring those same medications after that surgery. This is an added cost to the system and added man hours spent by doctors in treating the condition in a later stage.


Further, a condition caught in the early stages is less likely to cause a signifigant loss of productivity on the part of the patent, which means he keeps working rather than being in a hospital, pumping more money into the economy. What universial healthcare does is shift the focus on healthcare away from the more expensive treatments for diseases further along in their progression and more towards preventing them entirely or treating them as soon as possible, which in either case is going to be more expensive. Thus, a system that encourages preventitive care and makes it accessible to everyone will be cheaper in the long run.
Sigh.... You don't seem to grasp the concept of treating one person for one disease and preventing 1,000 from all diseases. Of course, everyone wants to prevent severe diseases, but even uber rich people get them. This is a bit off topic, but have you heard a joke about an old engineering who bills his service 50,000$ ( 1$ for the ink mark in the factory blueprint and 49,999$ for his knowing where to put it). Insurance companies are not charities; they are for profits. If you are seriously sick and have an insurance, guess who will pay the bill? What they are doing right now gives them profits. What you are suggesting, I seriously doubt, will not. And what makes you think the government will be better than private companies in managing this.

Unlike you, I don't see this the root of our health care problem. Imo, it's our policy to provide free health care to a portion of the population who consume this goods a lot.

Quote:
Also your whole supply and demand concept is being falsely applied. You're assuming all patients require the same man hours and cost for the doctor regardless of their condition. In fact, more severe conditions are going to require a lot more time on the part of a doctor and use a lot more resources than a patient coming in for a check up.
Hmm, if you have an upset stomach and see a doctor for 15 minutes, will he charge you less for that 15 minutes than a person with a heart disease? I seriously doubt that. Of course, the section with the latter will be longer but I am only interested in the cost of 15 minutes.

Now it is much more likely for a person to have problems similar to the former, is it not?
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-13, 21:16   Link #62
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Thanks to JMvS for actually supplying *useful* information on the advantages and problems that the Swiss system has.


Quote:
Insurance companies are not charities; they are for profits. If you are seriously sick and have an insurance, guess who will pay the bill? What they are doing right now gives them profits.
Because they are for-profits, it is their mandate to pay out as little as possible, to dump people who use the product, and maximize the profit. That is exactly the problem. Their mission charter is not to achieve a reasonable-cost-for-reasonable-health result. There is little serious competition because they're all using the same page from the same playbook. Many medical insurance companies USED to be non-profit - during the 80s and 90s, almost all of the non-profits were bought out by the for-profits to eliminate the competition.

Quote:
Unlike you, I don't see this the root of our health care problem. Imo, it's our policy to provide free health care to a portion of the population who consume this goods a lot.
Then you haven't studied the problem and are unprepared to discuss it. Even those factions that support the status quo don't try to assert that.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-13, 21:57   Link #63
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Sigh.... You don't seem to grasp the concept of treating one person for one disease and preventing 1,000 from all diseases. Of course, everyone wants to prevent severe diseases, but even uber rich people get them.
That's not how healthcare works. I explained this already, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try this one more time. You go to the doctor for a check up. The doctor runs labs. If anything is abnormal, the doctor then either starts to diagnose what could be wrong, or sends you to a specialist. Doctors don't scan for each disease individually. You're either greatly mistaken or deliberatly trying to misrepresent how preventive care works.

Also rich people are far more likely to have a disease caught early and be able to get treatment for it, giving them a higher survival rate.

Quote:
This is a bit off topic, but have you heard a joke about an old engineering who bills his service 50,000$ ( 1$ for the ink mark in the factory blueprint and 49,999$ for his knowing where to put it). Insurance companies are not charities; they are for profits. If you are seriously sick and have an insurance, guess who will pay the bill? What they are doing right now gives them profits. What you are suggesting, I seriously doubt, will not. And what makes you think the government will be better than private companies in managing this.
Why would the government do a better job? Simple, because they wouldn't be running it for profit. Health insurance isn't set up to give people good coverage, but to pay out as little as possible. Insurance companies tend to deny coverage for people that won't be as profitable as others and set coverage caps, not paying anything over that amount. The article that restarted this discussion, 60% of bankruptcies in the US were caused by medical bills, and of them 75% had insurance. Why did they still go into bankruptcy then? Could it be because their insurance companies stopped paying past a certain point because they decided it wouldn't be profitable?

Once again, US highest cost per capita for medical care and not even close to the top for that medical care. Something is wrong there.

Quote:
Unlike you, I don't see this the root of our health care problem. Imo, it's our policy to provide free health care to a portion of the population who consume this goods a lot.
Just about every piece of evidence that's out there says your wrong.

Quote:
Hmm, if you have an upset stomach and see a doctor for 15 minutes, will he charge you less for that 15 minutes than a person with a heart disease? I seriously doubt that. Of course, the section with the latter will be longer but I am only interested in the cost of 15 minutes.
Umm... yes you will pay more for treatment for heart disease, unless that upset stomach is a symptom of a larger problem that'll require further treatment. However, I'll assume you mean a simple upset stomach. The price for the office visit to the general practitioner may be the same, but following that for the heart disease you will be referred to a cardiac specialist who will run quite a few tests and you'll have multiple visits. You dont' just pay the doctor once upfront then all your treatment costs the same regardless of what it is. It'll be the same under socialized medicine, only instead of you paying each time, the doctor submits a claim each time. either way, he's getting more for the heart condition.


Quote:
Now it is much more likely for a person to have problems similar to the former, is it not?
Most people don't go to the doctor for upset stomachs anyway unless it's really bad or really frequent. They take over the counter medication.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-13, 22:41   Link #64
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Because they are for-profits, it is their mandate to pay out as little as possible, to dump people who use the product, and maximize the profit.
Huh? And maximizing the profits is the goal of all businesses.
Quote:
That is exactly the problem. Their mission charter is not to achieve a reasonable-cost-for-reasonable-health result. There is little serious competition because they're all using the same page from the same playbook.

Many medical insurance companies USED to be non-profit - during the 80s and 90s, almost all of the non-profits were bought out by the for-profits to eliminate the competition.
And people were so naive to feed those evil companies, you suggested? They won the competition for a reason.

The reason for health insurance is the exorbitant cost of health care which leads us back to the supply and demand curve. And what are people suggesting? Fix the insurance policy? What kind of logic is that?

Quote:
Then you haven't studied the problem and are unprepared to discuss it. Even those factions that support the status quo don't try to assert that.
They don't have the balls to, simple as that. As it stands now, whoever touches the two "Medi" will burn. People can propose whatever they want but mark this: whatever violates the laws of nature, including the law of simply and demand, will be bound to failure.

Imagine a physics paper starts with: "Suppose heat is transferred from a cold reservoir to the a hot one...." I don't care who wrote that paper. It will fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
That's not how healthcare works. I explained this already, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try this one more time. You go to the doctor for a check up. The doctor runs labs. If anything is abnormal, the doctor then either starts to diagnose what could be wrong, or sends you to a specialist.
... you refuse to understand, don't you? That doctor's labor is not FREE. And a doctor's labor is his TIME. Seeing 100 insignificant cases cost him more than 1 serious case.

Quote:
Doctors don't scan for each disease individually. You're either greatly mistaken or deliberatly trying to misrepresent how preventive care work
I don't know what you are getting at.

Quote:
Also rich people are far more likely to have a disease caught early and be able to get treatment for it, giving them a higher survival rate.
And rich people still die. Far more likely? Where do you get that from?

Quote:
Why would the government do a better job? Simple, because they wouldn't be running it for profit.
This is exactly why it will fail.

Quote:
Insurance companies tend to deny coverage for people that won't be as profitable as others and set coverage caps, not paying anything over that amount.
Otherwise, they will all go bankrupt. You want to see a typical example of a fail model? Simple: Medi"..." But why the heck are they still in "business?"

Quote:
Umm... yes you will pay more for treatment for heart disease, unless that upset stomach is a symptom of a larger problem that'll require further treatment. However, I'll assume you mean a simple upset stomach. The price for the office visit to the general practitioner may be the same, but following that for the heart disease you will be referred to a cardiac specialist who will run quite a few tests and you'll have multiple visits. You dont' just pay the doctor once upfront then all your treatment costs the same regardless of what it is. It'll be the same under socialized medicine, only instead of you paying each time, the doctor submits a claim each time. either way, he's getting more for the heart condition.
OK, enough of this. Until you see the difference between cost in term of capital and cost in terms fiat money, I don't see the need to discuss furthermore.

Here, read this:

http://www.publicagenda.org/facingup...Choicework.pdf


A fair paper. You know my stance: I'm all for option 1, for it is the only one that talks economic.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-13, 23:28   Link #65
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Let's talk about the basic principle of insurance.
Some say it is a hedge in case something goes wrong but the origin of insurance to my knowledge started at a pub in London called Loydds.
Customers at the pub near the docks started placing bets on which ship will reach their destination and which won't.
Gradually ship owners started to bet on other ships that they will reach safely to their destination and when they didn't paid off to the owner.
In other words, it's another form of "GAMBLING".

With life insurance you're betting on the out come of your life so the house gains more if you have a higher risk since the minimum wage is higher for each participants. On the otherhand, people who have little risk, the odds becomes LOWER meaning check-ups works against the house.
The house can also call foul and not paying for example not declaring actual health status not taking check-ups, so on and so forth.
Another interesting thing about insurance is statistics, this becomes the basis for minimum wage but with any mathamatical tool there are limits. In this case, the smaller the denominator a slight change in numerator changes the outcome or in this case odds changes drastically but the chances of a person being sick within the denominator is universal so the house always has a better chance of gaining.
With any type of gambling the house wins at the end no matter what.

The real question is how much should they be allowed to win?
__________________
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-13, 23:36   Link #66
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Well, now that iLney has so thoroughly established he has no idea what he's talking about, whether discussing the how existing system works or the merits of any proposed system, the rest of us can discuss the real problem, the source causes, and various ways to address it. I don't see any point on wasting further energy on him.

The link he points to can't even get off the second page without several major factual errors or incredibly misleading phrases. Follow the money and it is a product of several ultra-conservative think tank organizations with close ties to the health insurance industry and pharmaceuticals. Surprise...

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-14 at 00:41.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 00:45   Link #67
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Oh, yeah. Flame me. It's unavoidable though.

Made me wonder if you really read that small paper (it's obvious you don't). I can never make you shoot yourselves in the foot.

Let me guess: you assume that the whole paper support my point, right? Typical....
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 00:48   Link #68
qwertyuiopz
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
just copy canada

problem solved
qwertyuiopz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 02:53   Link #69
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
... you refuse to understand, don't you? That doctor's labor is not FREE. And a doctor's labor is his TIME. Seeing 100 insignificant cases cost him more than 1 serious case.
No, not necessarily.. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between time in surgery and time in an office consulting. Which do you think is going to cost more?


Quote:
I don't know what you are getting at.
That much is obvious.

Quote:
And rich people still die. Far more likely? Where do you get that from?
Seriously? Are you going to try to claim there's no higher incidence of death from treatable diseases among the lower income population?



Quote:
This is exactly why it will fail.


Otherwise, they will all go bankrupt. You want to see a typical example of a fail model? Simple: Medi"..." But why the heck are they still in "business?"
Not for profit != losing money.



Quote:
OK, enough of this. Until you see the difference between cost in term of capital and cost in terms fiat money, I don't see the need to discuss furthermore.
I like how you're trying to portray me as the ignorant one here.

Quote:
Here, read this:

http://www.publicagenda.org/facingup...Choicework.pdf


A fair paper. You know my stance: I'm all for option 1, for it is the only one that talks economic.
Wow, an actual source of sorts. Not that it says anything that wasn't covered here already and it in turn isn't sourced at all. You do have something that goes more in depth that an introduction for a debate topic for schools, right? Incidentily, I believe all the arguements against for option 3 have been addressed.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 08:28   Link #70
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
I have little time. So I'll make this short. First, you need to learn advance reading comprehension, the only reason I quote that source is because it mentions "cost," a concept that you don't seem to grasp. This is why:

Quote:
No, not necessarily.. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between time in surgery and time in an office consulting. Which do you think is going to cost more?
He's seeing someone, he's not treating someone else. How does he know how many people he must see before he treats. By regulation? That has "fail" written all over it. And furthermore, it costs the same, the labor of one doctor that is. It's not that the time he uses to perform surgery can be used to see 10 more patients.

Quote:
Seriously? Are you going to try to claim there's no higher incidence of death from treatable diseases among the lower income population?
The key is FAR more likely. I want to know how "far," that 's it.

Quote:
Not for profit != losing money.
Name one company/organization that is:

1)Non-profit.
2)Extremely big and powerful
3)Do not live on charities or tax money.

Here's one for you: the Church.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 09:15   Link #71
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
I have little time. So I'll make this short. First, you need to learn advance reading comprehension, the only reason I quote that source is because it mentions "cost," a concept that you don't seem to grasp. This is why:
Even with advanced reading comprehension, I still do not understand what you have written. Perhaps you would like to simplify your words into layman terms?


Quote:
He's seeing someone, he's not treating someone else. How does he know how many people he must see before he treats. By regulation? That has "fail" written all over it. And furthermore, it costs the same, the labor of one doctor that is. It's not that the time he uses to perform surgery can be used to see 10 more patients.
Erm do you know how the entire medical sector operates in the first place? Let's start with a basic, the hospital. Name me the staff, their individual jobs, and required qualification.

Then detail their modus operandi.


Quote:
Name one company/organization that is:

1)Non-profit.
2)Extremely big and powerful
3)Do not live on charities or tax money.

Here's one for you: the Church.
The Church runs on charity. I can give you a few :

1. Hamas
2. Al-Qaeda / Taliban
3. Islamic Courts Union

They don't run on profit (they are fighting for a "cause"), they are powerful enough to drop Qassam rockets on cities, terrorise capitals, invoke decrees that strike fear even into pirates and they run their own poppy plantation and arms trades.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 13:43   Link #72
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney
Name one company/organization that is:

1)Non-profit.
2)Extremely big and powerful
3)Do not live on charities or tax money.

Here's one for you: the Church.
Here's another couple for you: Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross / Blue Shield, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Goodwill Industries.
Here's a whole list of non-profit health insurance providers who meet those requirements.
http://www.nonprofithealthcare.org/members/

Really, you have *yet* to demonstrate you understand how the current system works and your broken examples lead others to conclude you don't understand how it works. You have yet to show you've done any serious research - soundbites and fanciful ideology is what you've given. As far as we can tell, you've never even interacted with a health insurance company (or a medical services provider) as a customer, much less done any study on how they operate or what their costs are.

You've repeatedly sidestepped or ignored questions that you don't want to answer in favor of nitpicking at the posts of others with snarky one-liners. You reject or ignore any attempts from posters who patiently try to explain how the current system works. For all intents and purposes, you simply appear to be trolling to divert energy away from a constructive discussion in which all sides might learn something. Its rather like you've entered a discussion about quantum mechanics and keep interrupting with questionable assertions about basic algebra.

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-06-14 at 17:08.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 18:14   Link #73
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Hey, I ask to list those that satisfied all the 3 criteria not just "non-profit." Jeez...

I have an experience. But it is quite different from what you think. A friend of mine, who was an international student, was involved in a small accident. She was admitted to a hospital famed for treating such injuries and very affordable, that is, if the patient were poor and had no health insurance since the it was run by apprentice doctors. My friend, of course, had an insurance and she naively told the staffs there she had an insurance. In the next week, that hospital charged her ~24,000$. Unfortunate for her, that hospital was not in the list of the insurance company from which she bought her insurance.

The insurance company only agreed to pay 5,000$ since it was the maximum fee to treat her injury in one of its facility. And 5,000$ was also the fee for an uninsured patient treated in that hospital.

What did I think about it? On one hand, I really appreciated that hospital's effort to help the poor. On the other.... It's so f*** up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
You've repeatedly sidestepped or ignored questions that you don't want to answer in favor of nitpicking at the posts of others with snarky one-liners. You reject or ignore any attempts from posters who patiently try to explain how the current system works. For all intents and purposes, you simply appear to be trolling to divert energy away from a constructive discussion in which all sides might learn something. Its rather like you've entered a discussion about quantum mechanics and keep interrupting with questionable assertions about basic algebra.
Constructive discussion? So if I talk about anything but how to fix the insurance policy, I am a troll. That's a lovely attitude you have here. Let me try to summerize everything up:

Problem: Joe had a cancer and received a bill of 500,000$ which obviously he cannot pay. His insurance company only agrees to pay 300,000$ which is stated clearly in its policy. And there are many people like Joe in the society.

Proposed solutions:

Yours: how to make the insurance company pays for 500,000$.

Kamui4356's: how to prevent Joe from having that cancer in the first place.

Mine: how to make the it 20,000$ instead of 500,000$, or even less.

Personally, I find it more constructive to debate with Kamui4356. At least, he wanted to reduce to cost even though I find his suggestion would lead to adverse effect. Yours, on the other hand, doesn't solve anything. The obscene price tag is still there.

If you want to attack me, go straight to the fact that doing what I suggested would initially destroy millions of people who are so used to the system. And for me, they have done nothing wrong. But others are also not at fault so why must they deserve this crappy system?
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 19:21   Link #74
SaintessHeart
Ehh? EEEEHHHHHH?
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Hey, I ask to list those that satisfied all the 3 criteria not just "non-profit." Jeez...
Mine sure made it into the list. Take notice!


Quote:
Constructive discussion? So if I talk about anything but how to fix the insurance policy, I am a troll. That's a lovely attitude you have here. Let me try to summerize everything up:

Problem: Joe had a cancer and received a bill of 500,000$ which obviously he cannot pay. His insurance company only agrees to pay 300,000$ which is stated clearly in its policy. And there are many people like Joe in the society.

Proposed solutions:

Yours: how to make the insurance company pays for 500,000$.

Kamui4356's: how to prevent Joe from having that cancer in the first place.

Mine: how to make the it 20,000$ instead of 500,000$, or even less.
$20,000? What are the pharmacists, hospital staff, people who made the chemotherapy drugs and equipment and the doctors going to eat? Grass?

Here is a bill I chocked up in middle school. Car accidents, a suicide attempt and skin graft of a 30+ stitch scar after getting hacked by a machete. It is over $900,000 but my parents are currently debt-free, mortgage free, and survived the instalments.

Maybe I was lucky it was subsidised by the insurance company. But being from a middle-income, my parents only finished paying the bills after I entered by 2nd year in high school. There is such a thing as a DELAYED payment, with interest, but considering the fact you earn as you pay and not have to fork out a lump sum, it is a blessing in disguise.

Besides, in emergency cases, even if it is cancer, the doctors have to treat first and get paid later. Almost every single country does and practice that.

Healthcare isn't being about totally in favour of the patient. The doctors don't sacrifice nights studying medical science. Neither should it be lopsided to benefit the private practitioners too.

Get a bite of reality. It isn't as screwed-up as it looks.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 19:35   Link #75
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
Kamui4356's: how to prevent Joe from having that cancer in the first place.
That's not quite accurate. I also want to have it discovered as early as possible. If it's discovered early, the cancer may be successfully treated with one round of chemo, as opposed to 2 or 3, and will have a higher survival rate. That way it both reduces costs and Joe there is more likely to live.


As to rich people having a much higher survival rate: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/582457

"Among patients living in the highest socioeconomic quartile, the 3-year observed survival rate was 59.9%, compared with 48.8% for patients in the lowest quartile."

That article had the clearest numbers, but there are lotsof others that reach the same conclusion. 11.1% is a rather signifigant difference. I'd also point out that socioeconomic factors are attributed as the leading factor to different survival rates depending on race.

Also, http://www.cbcrp.org/publications/pa...er/page_15.php

This one suggests that much of the difference in breast cancer survival rates is due to the more affluent having it diagnosed sooner, thus starting treatment at an earlier stage. This shows how important early detection is for things like cancer, something far more likey to happen with equal access to treatment.

As for the rest, we're not going to convince the other that we're right. Discussing this any further is unlikely to change that. The Declaration of Independence says people have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe that access to healthcare is a major component to that first one, and a notable contributor to the third.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Mine sure made it into the list. Take notice!
I don't think they're quite as non-profit as they claim to be.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 19:42   Link #76
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Hey, who knows. I just throw in a random number.

And you are right. People don't spend ~10 years studying to save humanity You really believed that they would charge you 900,000$ if they knew you didn't have an insurance. The insurance companies' hands are not clean but neither do those of doctors, hospital, patients... But somehow, quite a portion of the population is shielded from this mess by the government, which costs the nation dearly.

You are right. The system should not protect anyone.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 20:47   Link #77
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
You really believed that they would charge you 900,000$ if they knew you didn't have an insurance. The insurance companies' hands are not clean but neither do those of doctors, hospital, patients...
Uh, so the poor CEOs of the insurance companies are actually getting ripped off by their employees?

That's so sad. I think I need to cry now.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 21:22   Link #78
ClockWorkAngel
Aspiring Aspirer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow, Canada
Age: 22
Send a message via MSN to ClockWorkAngel
Wait so the doctors will charge you $100 000 for a $900 000 surgery if you don't have insurance. Where did that $800 000 go? I don't think that doctors suddenly decide to starve for a few months when their patients don't have insurance.

Tests and hours don't become free when you don't have insurance. It doesn't work that way. How can the hospitals and institutions afford to take a $800 000 debt to treat someone when they don't have insurance? Are you proposing that the hospitals, the institutions which sole responsiiblity is simply dispensing the service is liable to pay for someone's medical fees? This is much worse than "forcing" insurance companies to pay for it like you mention. You're expecting an organization to pay for something which they aren't responsible for, its an unknown cost for them. Atleast insurance companies are prepared and have the financial backing to pay for medical expenses; their purpose in the current scheme of things.

Like you said, doctor's hours are not free, but in no way are they going to overcharge because they can, believe it or not insurance companies have "regulations" or lack of, and so do medical associations and even the government! You can't get rid of a cost that is there, only prevent it beforehand or divert it somewhere else.
__________________

Credit To Risa-chan!
ClockWorkAngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 21:35   Link #79
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Of course, he totally missed that Kamui4356 and I are on the same page and fabricated an imaginary position to put me in. :P

I advocate:
1) preventative care;
2) a single payer non-profit system to eliminate the expansive amount of money that simply leaves the system via the amazing profits insurance industry racks up. It also eliminates the vast amount of resources squandered dealing with hundreds of different plans. The insurance companies can still have a seat at the table by bidding on execution of the processing (though at controlled profit level just like other contractors to the government). Everyone would be part of the system - those who meet low-income requirements would be subsidized. I'd pay for that by taking the cap off of medi-taxes (currently only the first $100K of income is taxed).
3) tort reform; so that insurance industries can no longer charge care providers up the ass for liability and malpractice insurance. That would be coupled with a process to get lousy caregivers out of the system and provide victims equitable redress.
4) I'd also invest in resources -- to increase the number of care providers with educational assistance.

Strangely, the non-profit HMO I belong to basically fits the bill nicely --- the only reason it costs as much as it does is because the user pool isn't big enough. One of the other benefits to single-payer universal healthcare -- it spreads the cost load over a huge population. The whole notion of "getting your healthcare through your employee" is just a busted way of slicing up the population so insurance can charge more (less bargaining power).
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-06-14, 22:29   Link #80
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Nah, he's different from you. What he suggested something that hopefully would pay off. That is, eventually, his goal is to bring down the demand curve.

You, on the other hand, suggested lots of good things which all come down to depending on some agent to pay the bill eventually.

While you think that the current resources used in health care is not enough. I and hopefully, he think that the way those are being spent is too wasteful.

Fundamental difference.

@ClockWorkAngel: If I were in the position of the cashier, I wouldn't charge someone that much if I knew he couldn't pay. On the other hand, if I knew you and your insurance company would pay that 900,00$ (and assumed that the conpany would pay most of it), why would I charge you 100,000$? Maybe I was greedy, maybe I hated big, fat insurance companies or maybe I just thought that the extra 800,000$ can be used to help more people without insurance or much poorer? The good (or bad) news is there are more people who has insurance than those who don't, and those who don't would not use the service that often. Plus, there are those who enjoy the Medi status.

It may start out just as 20,000$ instead of 3,000$. Despite that price, someone paid. Then many followed suit. Suddenly the real price became 20,000$. And so on... I don't think a successful insurance company would be as stupid as willing to pay 20,000$ in the beginning.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
health, healthcare

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:45.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.