2009-06-15, 04:02 | Link #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Keep things collapsed:
The U.S. healthcare system isn't that great, IMHO. It's very much dependent on the insurance industry to "lower" the cost for individuals by pooling their (individually somewhat small) premiums and driving down prices of tests and treatment by (essentially) mass production. A drug that cures 1 person only can be very expensive, but one that can be and is used by 100,000 people becomes cheaper. Japan's socialized medical plan (assuming that you are enrolled) is better, but OTOH, I haven't gotten into anything more serious than the flu. China's, based on personal observations and IMHO, is quite bad, and demands payment upfront; not sure if China has a "patient-dumping" law like the U.S., though, but nothing I had read seems to show it.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-15, 09:32 | Link #82 | |
Aspiring Aspirer
|
Quote:
Doctors don't charge using a patient by patient situational charge, its flat. They don't go spiking the price because they don't like you or your insurance company, do you know why? Because its bad PR, it's also fraud, which guess what is punishable by law. Prices don't inflate when one doctor charges $20,000 for a $3000 service, people go to other doctors then when they know they're getting ripped off. The only time they would increase price was because it costed more, because of new technology, more people on the job etc. Medical regulations in the US maybe are abit laissez-faire but they're not completely worthless.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-15, 10:45 | Link #83 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
I'll just keep noting that iLney is in no position to critique anything because he doesn't understand the current system and shows it in post after post. His tactic of misrepresenting other ideas makes it pretty much worthless to squander a lot of energy speaking to him. So far his only proposal that I can detect is a non-starter both politically and ethically because of the chaos and suffering it would cause. That is a bit of surmise because it is from him pointing to a link; he really hasn't proposed anything explicitly, only attacked others.
__________________
|
2009-06-15, 15:24 | Link #84 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@Vexx: hey, I didn't attack you. I attacked your ideas. What did I misinterpret? And this is the second time you told people to ignore me. Quote:
As far as that link goes, I don't know why you detest it that much. It's pretty innocent. I guess the reason it is not favorable here is because it is political incorrect, right? I mean, who dares to mention those two programs and SS. PS:@ClockWorkAngel: from my personal experience, the way it works is something like this: initially, the hospital charged a very high price which they expected the other party to refuse. Then both parties continue negotiating. However, there emerged some parties who were willing to pay at any price as along as it's not too unreasonable (say 1,000,000 for a band aid). That practice drove up the price significantly. Initially, those hospitals had great margin of profits. However, their suppliers saw this and also wanted a piece of the cake. Thus, everything started to inflate. Of course, the hospital always have profits. But to keep that margin, they have to continuous raise the price. If they don't and others do, they will become significantly less competitive. Now this sounds weird, right? But the fact is that the consumer who started this in the beginning had an enormous demand that no single supplier could satisfy. Other suppliers must constantly upgrade their facilities using the money paid by this consumer. The problem here is that the demand of this consumers can outgrow the supply. Given that, this big fat consumer somehow has unlimited capacity to pay for the bill, it's obvious that other consumers would suffer. Last edited by iLney; 2009-06-15 at 15:47. |
||||
2009-06-15, 16:09 | Link #85 | |||
Aspiring Aspirer
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A single consumer shouldn't have the ability to force the hand of the rest of the entire population. And I think you're misjudging how much the hospitals are inflating the costs. And actually if they don't raise the prices, they don't become less competitive, they become more so. Because people have the mindset to go to the cheaper hospitals! Suppliers will always raise prices and so will institutions this is mainly because of their additional costs; eg more people cause of expansion, money inflation etc.
__________________
|
|||
2009-06-15, 21:17 | Link #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Jeez, the mod requested me to stop posting here in order to "allow broader conversation." A valid request, I respect that. Anyway, farewell
Last words @ClockWorkAngel: replace "the customer" by "the government" or "Medicare and Medicaid," you'll see it more clearly. And if you still don't think that such amount of spending has little effects on prices as well as the supply and demand sides of the market, I have nothing more to say. We just think differently BTW, the first question I was asked by the hospital when I was admitted was "Do you have an insurance?" and the first question my insurance agent asked me (As the hospital was not in their network) was "Did you tell them that you had an insurance?" |
2009-06-16, 04:44 | Link #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: China
|
Well, it's not quite as bad as "screwed"... As long as you have either the cash and/or medical insurance, you can get some of the best care available in the world. I see the problem being:
1. It isn't great for the working poor. Medicare and Medicaid are not bad, but above a certain income threshold (among other limits that can exist), Medicaid is not available. Medicare is also limited to the elderly. It's also not "KISS". 2. It isn't good for someone outside of the "common denominator". Costs are usually driven by the number of patients possible, and is primarily driven by capitalism. If you are sick with something that is rare (but is still curable), the cost can be high; there is just not enough people around whom the cost can be spread. If you fall outside of the middle areas, you are in trouble if something major happens. There is that proposal to reform healthcare being hammered out, but the cost will be high. The use of "exchanges" in which people can purchase insurance sounds hard to work with as well. Something like the socialized healthcare would be great, but the costs, money and political, will stop people from doing it for everyone, IMHO.
__________________
|
2009-06-16, 15:51 | Link #89 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
Yet people insist things aren't like that, that there are true, substantial differences of essence between different countries. Every country has poor people, every country has rich people. And in every country, most poor people are screwed. That's a reality of the system, and it's unavoidable. What we can at least do, if we want to keep on clinging to this unfair system, is try to mitigate at least a little bit these differences. At least to make it so that people get their debt up their asses due to a medical condition they have no responsibility for.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-16, 16:04 | Link #90 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
What baffles me is all those "poor" (and in the US, poor can be defined as still pretty well off by most standards... including their own. It's easy to lose it all with medical bills there.) who insist they want to be bankrupted and/or die in a ditch. |
|
2009-06-16, 16:40 | Link #91 | ||
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
I mean, I have no problem with you being for that. As long as you accept that it's an unfair, selfdestructing, contradictory system. Or else you're being either hypocritical or an outright liar (or it could be that you just don't know). Everyone does that anyways... I'm not saying I'm not like that. But I accept the reality of the system, and at least wish for it to be different. Quote:
And being marginalized goes beyond not being "well off". As I said, there are no substantial differences of essence between the poorest people of the US and the poorest people of Haiti. All it amounts to is to a quantitative difference. Qualitatively, within the context of both societies, it's exactly the same.
__________________
|
||
2009-06-16, 16:57 | Link #92 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Two, there's an idea that anyone can get ahead if they just have the right oppertunity. As such they don't like programs designed to help th poor at tax payer's expense, because that's accepting that they need it and won't get become rich or see it as blocking their chance to make money. Three, there's always been a strong libertarian trend in the US. Such people basicly see governments as inheirantly oppressive, thus they must be kept as small as possible. Of course those same people seem to overlook the fact that private corporations can be just as oppresive in their drive to maximize profits. Four, it's because most people get their news from the talking heads on fox and cnn and simply don't bother to look any further than that. They just accept what the media is spoon feeding them as the complete truth. There are probably a few more reasons too.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-16, 17:32 | Link #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
As a libertarian myself I don't see the government as oppressive, but rather exceeding their responsibilities and sometimes even their capabilities. The biggest problem I have with the government being involved in health care is that it's something that's already too expensive and they're just going to make it worse in that respect due to waste and corruption that always seems to follow government money trails around. |
|
2009-06-16, 17:37 | Link #94 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Personally, I'm not rich, and am not likely to ever be. Societal level solidarity's worked for me in the past, and it may do so again in the future. Hopefully not too near future. So I'm generally in favor of it. But if I was made of money, maybe I'd think differently. Quote:
In my previous post, I used "poor" as "bankruptable by some ailment that'd be recoverable both medically and financially in a country with working healthcare". In the US, even a short hospital stay isn't trivial, or so I heard. So people who by all right should be considered middle class or more end up paupers because of a single disease or accident. And yet, you hear those same people, and those even poorer, talk of socialized health care as if it would ruin them all. It's one thing to be a selfish bastard. But to be a selfish bastard while working against your own self-interest? What's up with that? |
||
2009-06-16, 18:01 | Link #95 | ||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
The problem is that doesn't work as well as businesses get larger. Larger industries have a much higher cost of entry. If you think health insurance companies are ripping people off and want to start your own, good luck with that. You'll need massive funding just to get on the playing field, and even then you'll likely be absorbed by one of the existing companies. Plus there's the nature of how health insurance is bought. Most times the people don't have a choice on their insurance plans. They get what their company offers. They could try to buy an individual plan, but individual plans are vastly more expensive than the group plans they get through their jobs and may have less coverage on top of that. As for not using the service, a lot of times there isn't a choice. If it's a service people need and there's a huge cost of entry into the market for new companies, you're pretty much stuck with the existing ones. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-06-16, 21:26 | Link #96 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
As for your other point, well, you have to do something, and whatever you do has a very deep influence from the system that nurtures you, be it interpreted as positive or negative.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-16, 21:40 | Link #97 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
From what I can gather, it seems that there are 2 things to do, if you don't want to be screwed by health problems, even sudden ones.
1) Preventive care: Exercise. Don't be overweight (or obese). Cut down on alcohol and tobacco use. Have a healthy diet. It's your body. You, and only you, can enjoy the benefits of a healthy body. 2) Know what your insurance covers. Sit down with someone who understands legal jargon, and look through your current policies, with a microscope if the fine print is that darn small. Know the gaps (if any), and be prepared.
__________________
|
2009-06-16, 22:59 | Link #98 |
Aspiring Aspirer
|
The problem is that often enough you could be healthy enough you cna still attain life threatening diseases, that are often costly and might not be covered. Be it hereditery or for simply having it. There are certain factors you can't control.
My scheme for a system involves every person whom is a citizen and meeting some other credentials (To prevent abuse) to have in their possession an account. Every insurance company and such would be nationalized and combined into a super-organization which is publicly owned. The accounts work like a bank account except money cannot be taken out except to be transferred to other accounts or redeemed with hospitals etc. (Which can be nationalized but may be simply be regulated). Your account starts off with a set amount, and every fiscal year, more money is placed in this account. The money accumulates over time. This provides a large amount of money for the elderly and people whom are in their later years without as great of a threat of the economy failing because of lack of workers (Because the money isn't forced to suddenly appear, it was already there). Emergency aid is appliable, but all measures would be taken to siphon money from other places, be it from family members, friends and other sources. Alternatively the patient or their guardian(s) may apply for aid directly to the organization. But this would be of course the last choice. Money transfered cannot exceed a percentage or a set amount (Which ever is greater), this is so that accounts cannot be wiped clean and if transfers are made, then the charitable sources still have an amount to take care of themselves. Money is taken from taxes and the amount is inversely proportional to your wealth; the wealthy pay more etc. The accounts would pay for anything medical, dentist trips, doctor appointments, perscriptions etc. The scheme would be treat first and the organization claims the money. All efforts would be taken to limit or prevent abuse. But the system has alot of flaws though. The biggest thing that came to me is that it creates alot of beauracracy amongst other things.
__________________
|
2009-06-16, 23:00 | Link #99 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Most people don't actually get any real choice in their insurance plans. Since for some cock-eyed reason we tie it to the employer - the employee gets to choose between what plans the employer could afford its part of. As companies are absorbed by other companies, the benefits usually decay (in order to make their expenditure pay back faster). And of course, if you lose your job and have any sort of chronic condition --- forget any other insurance company picking you up.
You're also likely not to get hired these days if you have a pre-existing condition - the employer doesn't want to get dumped by the carrier. So you have to wonder who the customer is and what competition is being talked about anyway?
__________________
|
2009-06-16, 23:06 | Link #100 |
Observer/Bookman wannabe
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 38
|
@ClockWorkAngel: Well, yeah, I don't have any solutions for people with exisiting conditions. However, if you're healthy NOW, then look through that policy today and patch the holes, because if tomorrow brings an illness, then you are screwed.
__________________
|
Tags |
health, healthcare |
Thread Tools | |
|
|