2009-06-13, 16:19 | Link #61 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
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. Quote:
Now it is much more likely for a person to have problems similar to the former, is it not? |
||
2009-06-13, 21:16 | Link #62 | ||
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Thanks to JMvS for actually supplying *useful* information on the advantages and problems that the Swiss system has.
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2009-06-13, 21:57 | Link #63 | |||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
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. Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||||
2009-06-13, 22:41 | Link #64 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||||||||
2009-06-13, 23:28 | Link #65 |
Senior Member
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? |
2009-06-13, 23:36 | Link #66 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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. |
2009-06-14, 00:45 | Link #67 |
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.... |
2009-06-14, 02:53 | Link #69 | ||||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||
2009-06-14, 08:28 | Link #70 | |||
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:
Quote:
Quote:
1)Non-profit. 2)Extremely big and powerful 3)Do not live on charities or tax money. Here's one for you: the Church. |
|||
2009-06-14, 09:15 | Link #71 | |||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Then detail their modus operandi. Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|||
2009-06-14, 13:43 | Link #72 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2009-06-14, 18:14 | Link #73 | |
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:
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? |
|
2009-06-14, 19:21 | Link #74 | ||
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
||
2009-06-14, 19:35 | Link #75 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
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. I don't think they're quite as non-profit as they claim to be.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-14, 19:42 | Link #76 |
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. |
2009-06-14, 20:47 | Link #77 | |
Gregory House
IT Support
|
Quote:
That's so sad. I think I need to cry now.
__________________
|
|
2009-06-14, 21:22 | Link #78 |
Aspiring Aspirer
|
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.
__________________
|
2009-06-14, 21:35 | Link #79 |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
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 $100K of income is taxed). 3) tort reform; so that insurance industries can no longer charge care providers up the ass for liability and malpractice insurance. That would be coupled with a process to get lousy caregivers out of the system and provide victims equitable redress. 4) I'd also invest in resources -- to increase the number of care providers with educational assistance. Strangely, the non-profit HMO I belong to basically fits the bill nicely --- the only reason it costs as much as it does is because the user pool isn't big enough. One of the other benefits to single-payer universal healthcare -- it spreads the cost load over a huge population. The whole notion of "getting your healthcare through your employee" is just a busted way of slicing up the population so insurance can charge more (less bargaining power).
__________________
|
2009-06-14, 22:29 | Link #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Nah, he's different from you. What he suggested something that hopefully would pay off. That is, eventually, his goal is to bring down the demand curve.
You, on the other hand, suggested lots of good things which all come down to depending on some agent to pay the bill eventually. While you think that the current resources used in health care is not enough. I and hopefully, he think that the way those are being spent is too wasteful. Fundamental difference. @ClockWorkAngel: If I were in the position of the cashier, I wouldn't charge someone that much if I knew he couldn't pay. On the other hand, if I knew you and your insurance company would pay that 900,00$ (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. |
Tags |
health, healthcare |
|
|