Neither socialized medicine nor socialized health insurance is the answer.
I was reading and commenting over at Madville times, and from one or two of the comments, it appears that in this debate over Obamacare and socialized medicine and a public insurance option is that people are badly confusing 2 things with each other. Medical care and insurance.
Medical care needs little explanation. However, it seems as if insurance does, as I noticed one commenter talking about how a potential refusal to insure is somehow justification for socialized medicine. Insurance is no more than paying a fee to someone else (an insurer) for your participation in a pool (of people of similar situation) to assume the risk of paying claims.
No one says you have to get insurance. In that case, you pay your own way. It’s perfectly legal if you want to do that. The problem is that medical expenses have risen so much, it’s foolhardy to consider.
In past decades, the insurance industry has been successful in helping people bear what can be burdensome expenses in handling medical claims. The problem has gotten to be that it has started a vicious cycle. As insurance has made it easier for physicians and hospitals to collect fees as opposed to chickens (with hospitals being the worst culprits), those fees have risen.
That child delivery that was $300 30 or 40 years ago is now in the neighborhood of $5000-$8000. In high school (25 years ago) when I spent two months in traction with a broken femur from a motorcycle accident, the Dr. Bills and hospital stay were about $30,000. I shudder to think of what it would be nowadays – likely by a factor of five to ten.
With $15 dollar boxes of kleenex, whether you used it or not – would you expect to pay that out of pocket? Now, if you wouldn’t pay it, should your insurer? Well…. They don’t think so either. So, they’ve had to build mechanisms to try to combat that. Because of these massive increases in fees, the administration of claims for insurance companies has become nightmarish. They have formed HMOs, PPO’s, started managing claims, and added more acronyms to help hold back the tide. And because expenses continue to rise, in turn, they’ve had to be much pickier over the risks that they are willing to assume.
People get up in arms because they believe that insurance companies are getting rich over the premium that are paid in, and claims are supposedly not paid. Last I knew, many of the profits being made are not off of premiums, but from their investments. And when they do too well (as many individual investors had done in recent decades) people get mad, because they see record profits.
So to recap, people are mad because their medical expenses are way up, and they’re mad when their insurance companies are investing too well at the same time they won’t pay for a $15 box of tissues.
And some people believe that the magical answer is to have socialized medicine, or better yet, a government run insurance program. Which of the problems noted above does that fix? None.
I can’t think of worse solutions or more naivete. Government run solutions – especially “a non-profit public insurance option” – will be utterly and completely doomed to failure. Why? Well, first, they aren’t driven by profit. They’re driven to fulfill a government mandate or entitlement. They don’t care about making money.
Who would use “a non-profit public option?” The people who can’t get insurance, and the uninsured people who don’t bother thinking about it until they get sick. In other words, you have this massive pool of sick people who from day one will cost more in claims than they will pay in premium. It’s an automatic negative.
The problem with this solution is that it’s like fixing the road because you have a flat tire. Don’t fix the road, fix the tire. The root of the cause is the expense of health care. A government run insurance program isn’t going to fix that. It will just exacerbate the problem at taxpayer expense.
Real solutions? They aren’t going to be short term fixes like Obamacare. First and foremost, we need an explosion in the number of Doctors, other medical professionals, and hospitals. Competition improves price – that whole supply and demand. In turn, to reduce their expenses, they need relief on their costs, such as “loser pays” legislation when it comes to malpractice to reduce the number of meritless claims.
If the government feels the need to step in and take an active role, they should look at limiting the mark up on medical supplies that are passed on to the consumer – such as the $15 box of tissues. Huge markups on consumable supplies are just a way to hide administrative or other costs thay they want to avoid disclosing. Or Government could step in and demand a streamlined and standardized insurance claim process for physicians in filing patient medical claims.
Or best of all, they could make a health care provider’s education free with mandatory government service. I’d bet it would be still cheaper than Obamacare promises to be.
There are reasonable options they can take with insurers, such as requiring high ratios of premiums versus paid claims. But if they can manage to make a profit in that environment, why punish their success? (Hint – it’s better than the taxpayer paying for it).
Instead of creating a massive crushing negative sucking black hole that will require huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, why don’t we fix the root problem?
Make health care more available, and contain the costs. Fix the flat tire instead of the road.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I know doctors who pay $100,000 in malpractice insurance premiums a year. Maybe the government should tackle malpractice insurance before health care!
The hidden costs for hospitals are often for those Emergency Room visits, charity cases and other “free care” they give. “There is no such thing as a free-lunch” doesn’t mean ‘you get charged,’ as much as it means ‘everything has to be produced’!
PP: This ia a great read!
PP says: “Instead of creating a massive crushing negative sucking black hole that will require huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, why don’t we fix the root problem? Make health care more available, and contain the costs. Fix the flat tire instead of the road.”
Don Frankenfeld says: “Sam’s plan has the virtue of being comparatively inexpensive, as health care for young people is still pretty cheap. I think it is a good idea, and for now, because I believe we are in crisis and something is better than nothing–in fact almost anything is better than nothing–mark me down as a Hurstian.”
Don Frankenfeld is a Yale and Harvard graduate, an economist and a professional witness for litigation cases, many of which involve insurance claims. Sam Hurst is a former NBC new reporter and producer and recipient of the coveted Neiman Fellowship: http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/NiemanFoundation.aspx
Pat Powers is a Real Estate salesman.
Members of the jury, which expert are you going to listen to?
(Bill – I guarantee you I have more experience on it than Hurst the news man, and I suspect more than you as an ad man. I spent 5 years on the front lines dealing with South Dakotans who had coverage issues. When someone lost coverage or had a problem, the calls came to me, and it was my job to try to help solve their problems, or to explain why I couldn’t. And with a certain percentage, I had the displeasure of letting them know there was noting I could do for them under ERISA, because the Federal Government said so.
You’re operating under a false assumption that more Government is the solution. It most certainly is not. -pp)
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, may I present a previous post by one PP. “From my time with the Division of insurance when I was the person handling life & health insurance complaints (for about 4 1/2 – 5 years, I got to see firsthand how the federal government through ERISA royally screwed up the regulation of self-funded health insurance plans.” I believe he does bring some expertise in here.
Health insurance does not have to be all that expensive. Several years ago, I chose not to participate in the health insurance from the organizations I worked for and my wife worked for. I chose instead to take the opt out and buy insurance separately for me and my children. The total cost was about $100/month, if I remember correctly. Today, I have a son whose employer gives him a stipend to purchase insurance. I connected him with a friend of mine who got him a policy for about $75/month. Today I am covered through my wife’s policy that has a high deductible, but includes a medical savings account. There are all sorts of ways to get coverage for most people and it does not have to cost that much.
“Who would use “a non-profit public option?” The people who can’t get insurance, and the uninsured people who don’t bother thinking about it until they get sick. In other words, you have this massive pool of sick people who from day one will cost more in claims than they will pay in premium. It’s an automatic negative.”
In order to determine who will buy the public option, we have to look at who the uninsured are in America. Many of them are people who can’t afford private plans, but aren’t poor enough for Medicaid. Many of them are people who are simply between jobs. Many are college-age students like me who think they are invincible and so don’t need insurance. Relatively few in number (still too many) are people who have pre-existing conditions and can’t find a private company to cover them.
Now the last group will be the most expensive. However, it is not unreasonable that their costs could be balanced by profits from healthy younger people, healthy people between jobs, and those who can’t afford private plans, but are more or less healthy. I don’t know the exact numbers on these groups, but if you really wanted to know if the public option would be budget neutral or not, it might be helpful to find out. But the notion that only the deathly ill yet uninsured will sign up for the public option is false.
I’ve been noticing a glaring omission of the plight of the most important player in the health care debate by all commentators, both nationally and here at SDWC. The player: we local property tax payers. Indigent health care in the United States is provided almost exclusively by county governments. Ask any of your county commissioners and they’ll tell you nearly half of their budget goes to indigent health care. County government, as we all know, relies almost entirely on property taxes to operate in S.D.
Having been more than once at Hennepin County Medical Center in the wee hours, believe me, it’s a no frills system: and yet, it remains a massive burden on local taxpayers. Whether Obamacare will shift the entire payment mechanism to the federal level isn’t quite clear yet, but, it’s very clear that there should be significant relief provided to local government.
As a property tax reliant state, South Dakota taxpayers might actually be winners in a shift to federal payment. It will be our burden, then, to demand counties pass the savings along via property tax reductions instead of going on a spending spree.
It is quite clear most of the bill isn’t written, yet! After it is, the congress will pass it and Obama will be waiting there to sign it.
Anything worth doing is worth doing well! All of you defending the government plan don’t care or aren’t getting it yet; unless this plan is tested and tested and tested and proven it is a B-A-D bill. We are talking about your health, my health, everyones health here!
Government isn’t known for caring for the individual; let’s stop dreaming they can instantly do it now!
Bill you must be writing that stuff as a joke. MHS we still have to pay for people that are not able to pay. Your take is we take it out of your left pocket vs right pocket.
I am with the common sense crowd, fix the problems not crush the system.
“”"”I know doctors who pay $100,000 in malpractice insurance premiums a year”"”" Guy, my doc says he will never be able to retire. They are held liable for how many years???? times $100,000 even after they retire. For some reason they cannot depend on the policy in force at the time of the procedure being contested.
I know the statute of limitations on some is seven years. $700,000.
Another surgeon I know, spends at least 12 hours a day at the hospital. I suppose he goes home now and then but he’s probably on call most of the time, due to his field. They simply don’t get paid enough for what they do!
Now, we had a speech last Wednesday, claiming doctors take off limbs etc. charging $30,000(?) for it. It’s likely there are bad doctors out there, but making them into villians so dolts like Bill, Braden and others can use it as emotional factoids for the promotion of a half-hearted health care bill. That’s dastardly!
Does anybody know if any type of polling has taken place on this issue in S.Dak.?If so what are the results. I have to admit I am confused. Everybody agrees there is a problem but how to fix is another thing. Why don’t people get upset that there really is no tort reform? I am not a big governent type of a person as everthing I have ever seen the goverment do takes longer and costs more but I do think there is some role for goverment oversight. For those of you who think health insurance companies are lilly white guess again. When you have people selling health insurance making $400000 a year while a Dr. makes $200000 something is out of wack. On top of all this how many hospitals are non- profits which pay no taxes. Anyway I have always thought the American people working together could slove anything the problem is when you have all the votes you lock out close to half the peoples opnion then you wonder why people are mad. Come on get real.
My work takes me on the backroads of South Dakota and other states, giving me ample opportunity to visit with people from, as someone once said, the “real America.” Just as there is diversity of opinion on what should happen with our health care system (much of which is based on misinformation), there is a commonality that I see in more towns than not.
What I see is the jar in the convenience store or other such place asking for money so that some member of the community can pay for some medical procedure. In the bigger towns it may be an event (concert for so-and-so), but mostly I see jars.
Why is this the case? Usually it is because the person does not have/cannot afford/lost/reached the cap on/ his health insurance or the insurance just did not cover what was needed.
Now, for each jar out there I’m guessing there are many others in the same boat, but just don’t have the connections/desire/brashness to put out the jar.
PP comes across as a good apologist for the insurance industry. Lois Quam, former CEO of UnitedHealth, a health insurance company supports a public option. Wendell Potter, retired corporate communications exec for Humana and then Cigna cites the major ways insurance companies ’save’ money–1) deny requests for expensive procedures; 2)seizing upon a technicality to cancel the policy of someone who has been paying premiums and finally gets cancer or some other expensive disease. A Congressional investigation into rescission found that three insurers, including Blue Cross of California, used this technique to cancel more than 20,000 policies over five years, saving the companies $300 million in claims (from Nicholas Kristof, 8/26/09).
Just trust us say the insurance companies–not those hospitals who charge $15 for a Kleenex. We’re here to serve you.
To that I say ‘balderdash’
Recently a friend of mine who immigrated here from the Republic of Ireland was at a dinner and seated at a table with some insurance execs. In an effort to make conversation, they asked her about health care in Ireland. As her mother still lived there (and is quite frail and in need of health care), my friend said that her mother gets what she needs, and always has without having to worry about going bankrupt. That ended the conversation right there.
So, google Wendell Potter and see what he has to say.
Why is it that people from Ireland come here and not the other way around? FREEDOM!
Be careful of what you ask for, free healthcare from the government comes with a cost, loss of freedom. There will be rationing, end of life discussions, who pays for it, do we get to see the same Dr. everytime.
There are way too many unanswered questions? Where were Sandlin and Johnson? I have a few questions to ask?
Pat, how long is your list of Veterans who want to give up their VA health care. How long is your list of seniors who want to forego their Medicare policy? How long is your list of people who want to stop paying into FICA and count on private health insurance for their health insurance plan for their life age 65 to ??? Is it a majority, or a very small minority of each group?
Now, tell me what % of a Americans, when asked if they would like to have access to Medicare would answer “No.”
Answer those questions and I’ll acknowledge you as someone who knows what you’re talking about. (Warning, I have seen the results of such polling.”
I don’t doubt some people in these socialist environments like what they have. If not, the majority would leave!
“The Jar” is a better option than Government because the money that goes into it – ALL of it goes to the family. On top of that, no one is forced to give.
I don’t know that policies are cancelled. I don’t know that people like socialized care or why they would, the figures don’t add up. Limited money means limited care.
What I do know is:
– you occupy a hospital room, everything that goes into that room is yours unless it can be sanitized!
– if you can’t pay for it yourself, someone else will have to pay for it.
– if you don’t pay for your insurance, they will cancel your policy.
– if you work 3 jobs that pay $20,000 you can make $60,000 before taxes.
The bill we are currently debating doesn’t address how these costs are to be paid. It doesn’t address how doctors can get paid for doing a better job. It sure doesn’t allow tax breaks for people paying off medical debt…it taxes them!
You get medical bills every Christmas and then you can tell me to take inadequite government health care for a “cheaper” option! The “crazy’s” on my side want their doctors and health care! The government is a parasite on health care that will kill it before it moves on to its next bill!
Now, and this is especially for you, old guy, I call your attention to the following recent polls. Pay special attention to the last two polls:
Bill, What would be the outcome of these polls if you asked only Obamas Administration and Congress?
The results of your poll depends upon who you ask. Polls are used to justify bad policy!
Nice try!
I think this all points out eveybody agrees something needs to be done. Bill are there any polls out there that pertain to just South Dakota?
“People get up in arms because they believe that insurance companies are getting rich over the premium that are paid in, and claims are supposedly not paid. Last I knew, many of the profits being made are not off of premiums, but from their investments. And when they do too well (as many individual investors had done in recent decades) people get mad, because they see record profits.”
That’s the paragraph I find hilarious. Last you knew their profits were from investments! HA! Yeah. Have you been hanging out at Newland’s house?
the “public option” is unconstitutional. nothing in the constitution gives the federal government the authority to enact such a program.
i know, nobody cares. but somebody has to defend the constitution.
Check it out, lexrex.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/4/776760/-Are-mandates-without-a-public-option-unconstitutional
“Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas is one member who did attend gatherings dominated by boisterous opponents of health reform.
At a meeting in Waco, a man asked him what constitutional authority the federal government had to get involved in health care. Edwards replied, “Article One, Section Eight,” which empowers Congress to provide for the “general welfare of the United States.”
Bill, we have gone over this before. That is nonsense and you know it. That particular part of the Constitution does not refer to the ability of the US Government to do anything it sees as part of the “general welfare of the United States”. The man who authored that has said that is not what it was written for. Besides, one could argue that preventing what the Democrats and Barack Obama are proposing would be in the “general welfare of the United States”.
Bill, Polls are only as good as the people who take them…and ask them….and throw them into a news story…
That’s why there so much garbage in the media today. everything is polled to death before the public has a chance at it.
The only thing worse than reading polls is living by them!
Elections are polls, Guy. If you’re not interested in them, why do you engage yourself in politics?
duggerSD, I know no such thing.
I think the General Welfare clause applies, especially when taken in combination with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the commerce clause.
Now, you and lexrex can argue that it’s not in there until you’re blue in the face, but the fact remains, the words are on my side.
You can only arrive at your conclusion by interpreting the words so narrowly as to make them practically meaningless — a regrettable, Orwellian skill that you neocons seem to be becoming quite adept actually.
Not exactly a poll, but interesting none-the-less: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html
Scroll down to see SD favoring public option 46% to 43%.
It also seems doctors like the idea of a public option, again, scroll down for results: http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=home
Elections ARE NOT polls. In elections, a candidate spends years and 100’s millions of dollars to sell themself. I thought you were in Advertising??
Polls are knee-jerk reactions to complex questions. Example, When did you stop stealing from your customers, Bill? – that question is unfair and meant to hurt you!
When is it good to believe such propaganda?
BTW, are you a registered Republican? I thought I saw that somewhere?
Guy, sometimes your stupidity is downright embarrassing.
What do you call the places where people go to vote?
Right.
The Polls.
Doh.
I am a registered Democrat.
Bill, Do they hunt down people to vote? No.
Do they hunt down people to take polls? Yes.
Your statement is sophmoric at best!
A poll is a representative sampling of the opinions of a larger population group, the accuracy of which varies depending on sample size and polling methodology. The technique for gathering data has very little to do with it, unless of course you’re running a push poll. In most circumstances people vote and respond to pollsters voluntarily. i.e. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, Guy. Sorry.
Some good information for Guy regarding the relative accuracy of various polls from one of the the best practitioners in the field:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings
Your changing your perspective, Bill.
It matters what people think. Thought is a little more complex than ‘choose a, b, c or d’. If you need a crutch…
What are you talking about Guy? Do you want Obama or John McCain to be the next president? (mark ballot) Don’t want either? (don’t mark ballot) Don’t care (don’t vote) Want to lie? (mark ballot opposite of what you really think) Same with taking a poll. Pretty simple, Einstein.
p.s. Guy, the difference between a phone poll and the ballot box is precisely the polls ability to go more in depth about what the poll respondant is really thinking. Thus, properly conducted non-election polls of statistically significant sample sizes give you far MORE information, not less. It’s how people know how best to influence the undecided voter. Everybody in politics (except you, apparently) knows this.
So you think people care about taking polls? I really want to take the little time I have to speak to someone who doesn’t really care about me! I really want to know the information I give them is going to be used by them however they see fit. Because the pollster is in control of the information, not me!
I’m glad you have a healthy self-esteam. But giving you the time of day is kinda pushing it!
On election day people are probably a little more commited to their opinions, especially when they know who they are communicating to!
You are gullible.
Bill, you have no such thing on your side. But I have the major author on my side.
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison
And from a letter to Edmund Pendelton:
“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.”–James Madison
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. We have here two interpretations. One of which is bastardized over the years being supported by one Bill Fleming; the other interpretation that comes from the principle author of the US Constitution supported by DuggerSD. Which one do you believe to be the correct interpretation? On the one hand, Bill Fleming twists and turns the meaning of the document and on the other hand DuggerSd supports the traditional interpretation supported by the evidence and facts. Which interpretation makes the most sense?
The argument seems to be:
Health Insurance companies should be able to
a) collect premiums on the proposition that when the insured get sick they’ll pay the bill
b) take the premiums paid by the insured and invest them to generate a profit
c) keep the profits (billions) from both the premiums and investments and deny coverage when the insured get sick
d) split the profits among the CEO’s of the Health Insurance company and the shareholders except for a portion used to buy politicians in order to continue the scam
e) increase premiums in the face of record profits
And “Obamacare” proposes to
a) charge premiums on the proposition that when the insured get sick they’ll pay the doctor/hospital/clinic
b) pay the doctor/hospital/clinic when the insured get sick
Is that about it?
duggerSD, if you want to address the entirety of my argument, don’t forget I said “when taken in combination with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, the commerce clause.”
Also, don’t forget that their are already significant health care laws and public health care systems in place and none have been deemed unconstitutional.
In short, it’s not just me you are arguing with, it is the very history of your Republic. Again, though, please feel free to beat your head against that brick wall just as long as you please, my friend. Just don’t expect to persuade very many people.
Nice work duggersd. BF’s BS is getting to the line of twisted and so unrealistic that his ability to twist something, call someone a name, then the good old you hate children and the environment. He’s losing what credibility he once had. He only visits this site to direct traffic to his own, sorta of like Detroit. Oh what happened to him and poor old CCK.
Well Bill, please explain how the clause that deals with Indian commerce, foreign commerce or interstate commerce is used in conjunction of the general welfare clause to allow the government the ability to install a health plan such as this? You have one thing right. Talking to you is like beating my head against a brick wall. However, I think the jury will decide in my favor. BTW, I would argue that if you really took the Constitution seriously, you would say the 9th and 10th amendments would prohibit what the Democrats and Obama want to do.
And other health related goods and services. (illegal drugs, FDA approval of meds, etc, etc.) You’re losing this one big time duggerSD. You should just concede and move on. There are lots more real world, important issues to discuss besides your la-la land take on Constitutional law.
bf, the clause states that congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the native american tribes.
i’m not sure how my going to see my local doctor falls into any of those categories, unless perhaps, i have to cross into another state to do so. even then ….
your interpretation, allowing congress to regulate intrastate activity confers the feds with a general power over the whole country. that means it can step in and stop guy from growing his own corn or medical marijuana for his own consumption; it can use tax dollars to fund abstinence programs; it can fund just about anything it wants.
as clarence thomas said in his dissent against the supreme court’s decision upholding a federal marijuana prohibition: “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything,” including “quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers.” Thus “the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
why do you suppose the founders put in a commerce clause, at all, if they thought the federal government should have the authority to fund any and everything under the sun?
your concession allows the government to expand into just about anything it wants. madison in federalist 45 said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” that means that the federal government does not have unspecified and indefinite powers, but specific and limited ones.
he also said in federalist 41, to those who feared an unlimited, undefined power of the federal government, that if that if it were the case then there would’ve been no need for the “enumeration of particular powers” in article 1, section 8. he argued that the federal government exercising any power not specifically defined in the constitution would’ve been an “absurdity.”
only a gross misreading of the constitution — and a complete confusion between “interstate” and “intrastate” — would allow such an interpretation.
Well, there you have it, lexrex. The crux of the debate. You and Clarence Thomas against the world. Keep on swingin’ slugger.
…p.s. lexrex, you do realize that you answered your own question, right? You know, that part where you might have to move to another state. Like when you get that great, new, big money job in Alaska. Especially with that pre-existing hangnail and stuff. And you can’t take your policy with.
bf 3:24, that makes no sense. that’s like saying that because i want to bring my coffee table with me if i move to alaska that the feds, all of the sudden, have authority to regulate my use of that coffee table.
besides, it’s not just me and clarence. it’s also the guys who drafted the commerce clause. pretty good company, if you ask me.
you may be right that it’s us against the world, but that doesn’t bother me. i’d rather be right than popular.
On a side note to PP’s excellent piece, the argument can be made that the modern world would never have happened without the financial tool of risk-assessment, that is, insurance. So it strikes me as odd how angry many get at insurance companies. Frankly, they’ve always treated me well, answered my questions forthrightly and paid fairly when I’ve had a claim. Is it because I’m always so right AND popular?
i would like to know how much the basic stuff costs, compared to what it cost 50, 60, 100 years ago. i would venture to guess that treatment for things like the common cold and flu, fixing a broken arm, and getting stitches is pretty reasonable, comparatively speaking.
the more remarkable stuff, such as brain and cardiac surgeries and cancer treatments are more expensive, in part, simply because they’re new. new stuff always costs more, because they’re fresh from the “laboratory,” where they were developed. where it took great amounts of time and money to create and develop.
for instance, time-released meds to treat heart disease is astronomically more expensive today, because 80 years ago, they didn’t exist. those kinds of medicines cost money to be developed.
those kind of meds can be extremely expensive, but not as expensive to the patient had they not been created. think of the countless expensive surgical procedures that have been avoided by taking less expensive drugs.
lr. Be sure to clean the drawers out in your coffee table reeeel good, before you go crossing borders, Mon. You never know what your crazy neighbors might have stashed in there.
Guy Smylie @ 9:55 am said: “Elections ARE NOT polls.”
Mr. Smyle, check out dictionary.com and type in the word ‘polls’. Be sure to read numbers 2 and 3 carefully and repetitively. And the word you were looking for at 10:22 a.m. was sophomoric. BF is right, your stupidity is embarassing.
BF is right that under existing SCOTUS jurisprudence the commerce clause permits national healthcare.
Lex et al are right that the framers did not intend for the commerce clause to grant such vast power to the federal government.
Of course, if lex et al are consistent with their jurisprudence, they would argue that most federal drug laws — which of course are premised on the commerce clause — are unconstitutional as well.
In my opinion, we ought to repair the “road” and replace the “tires.”
As you will gather from some of my comments at Madville Times, I am a left-wing radical on this issue. However, I would like nothing better than to have someone convince me that I’m missing the mark.
My chief fear, should I get sick, is the possibility that the insurance company will simply “stiff” me. “Wait until the pig flies or the old fart dies, whichever comes later,” I can hear them say as they chortle and then push the button on the little pink piggie on the table, making its little purple wings flap.
Flat on my back sick I will be, helpless to combat the insurance company’s lawyers.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe my insurance company is composed of entirely honorable characters.
Naturally, the question arises, “Why should we trust the government any more than we would trust insurance companies?” That is the sixty-four-trillion-dollar question. Lately, I’ve lost some trust in our government. However, the very fact that they are +not+ motivated by profit makes me believe that they might take a more moral view of health care.
In my opinion, the government must impose strict cost controls on health care — no more $15 boxes of tissues — and then enforce these controls with sharp teeth. Only then can a socialized medical system work. However, I continue to believe that the current system is Byzantine, immoral, inefficient, bloated, wasteful, and shot through with greed and fraud.
No wonder so many people stood up and cheered as Obama gave his famous “You lie!” oratory. Maybe they, like me, have relatives living in fear from day to day because they lost their mediocre jobs and can’t seem to find another mediocre job — and one day that pacemaker might stop ticking.
Let the debate go on! Keep trying to convince me I’m wrong. But don’t call me ignorant or stupid. I am already aware of these defects in my character …
Stan, the problem with the strict cost controls you talk about is that it only leads to cost shifting. I am not sure about this, but I would be willing to bet the $15 box of tissues has a lot to do with the cost controls Medicare has already put on the industry. Ask yourself, why is that box of tissues costing %15?
I hear about how great Medicare is. Maybe someone who is more familiar with this can tell me. If you are hospitalized for something Medicare deems you should be hospitalized for three days and have to stay six days, what happens? Does the hospital eat the costs or does Medicare pay?
Medicare has set certain amounts it pays for different procedures. If the cost is more than what Medicare pays, somehow that has to be made up. Essentially the hospital has to eat the extra costs. So, what to do? They shift the costs to people who have insurance and add to the retail price of that box of tissues. This might also explain why some doctors are dropping Medicare patients.
Stan, I have had some experience with health insurance, but not to a great extent. In the cases where I have had to file a claim, I have not had any problems. I would rather deal with an organization worried about the bottom line than the government. At least with the corporation, I can go somewhere else. With the government, I am stuck.
Here Bill. You like polls so much. This should give interesting reading. 45% of doctors would consider leaving the field if Obamacare goes into effect. And this is interesting, “More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered “no” when asked if they believed “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better.”
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199 Enjoy.
Yes, I know, duggerSD. That’s why doctors want a public option.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE58D67120090914
Whoops, forgot the excerpt. PP gets all bent out of shape with me for some reason when I don’t provide an excerpt. Like he doesn’t want to really read the link or something… any way…
Excerpt from above link:
“Similar results were seen when doctors were asked about extending Medicare to those aged 55 and above. Fifty-eight percent supported the idea, 23 percent were opposed and 19 percent were unsure.
In the smaller survey, 73 percent said every doctor ought to care for the uninsured and underinsured and 67 percent said they were willing to accept limits on payments for expensive drugs and procedures as a way to save money and make basic care available to more people.”
“”"However, the very fact that they are +not+ motivated by profit makes me believe that they might take a more moral view of health care.”"” Stan, I am not sure what our politicians are motivated by other than money and power. They darn sure are not motivated by profit when all they have to do is tax more rather than cleaning up expenses to improve margins like I must do.
“”"Let the debate go on! Keep trying to convince me I’m wrong. But don’t call me ignorant or stupid. I am already aware of these defects in my character …”"” I appreciate this Stan, I am just a little tired of that ranting.
Les, that’s a little naive, don’t you think? Of course politicians are motivated by profit. Especially around election time. It’s the constituency that doesn’t worship profits that’s underrepresented, primarily because they can’t chip in to sweeten the fat cats’ campaign coffers. The internet is changing all that, but it’s not a done deal yet. Not by a long shot. The good ol’ boy networks are all still very much in play.
Actually Bill, IBD poll pretty much contradicts your poll. Of course it might have something to do with how the questions were asked. According to the one I referred to, doctors do not want the public option.
BTW, back to your claim about the public option being constitutional based upon the commerce clause. According to my reading, that is regulating, not operating. And since you like words so much here it is: To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
I do not see operate, I see regulate. Big difference.
Anonymous, 9:06 pm – Sophomoric is spelled with 3 o’s. Good for you!
Elections are not polls. And Yes, the word ‘Poll’ can be used for both the election process and asking a targeted group of people misleading questions. But like you, Bill and some others often do, you leave out meanings and important factual information, necessary to discussing the topic. So, that is why I used the word Sophomoric because it is irresponsible and childish.
BF, The old sophomoric term probably defines why you want government to take care of you. Constitutionally speaking, do you think the colonists risked their lives to have more government like England, or did they fight for everyones freedom to live how they saw fit? Because what I’m hearing from you is our government knows what is best for us. Is that what you’re saying?
Now, how exactly am I being sophomoric again?
Is it because I am arguing for solutions for today’s America and it’s modern, mature-nation concerns as opposed to those of a rebellious America in its infancy?
I think you may have that backwards, Guy.
As with all sophomores and other pretentious, bombastic, sesquipedalian writers, you should probably look those big words up before you try to use them in a sentence, young fella.
So because you know how to drive you stop using the rules of the road?
Intelligence is using past knowledge to come up with new solutions, not removing old solutions when you don’t feel like doing them anymore, immature fella.
Actually, Guy, that’s not what “intelligence” is at all.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intelligence
You’re two for two, kid. Three strikes and you’re out.
Ancient Greek ideas of reality gave way to Newtonian ideas which gave way to Einsteinian ideas which are now being revised by today’s crop of physicists. All of the people involved were highly intelligent. It is the ideas that are evolving as new technologies and insights into the fundamental nature of things comes to light.
Just because you refuse to believe in gravity won’t make the laws fail to apply to you. In other words, the princile reason for Our Constitution was to get rid of Government control and let the citizens run the country. Government Run Health Care controls more than just insurance prices and it would be best if you would look at that.
The link wasn’t to intelligence it was immature; and no “it is not itelligence”.
Again, Guy, if gvt. run health care is so bad, how come those who have it want to keep it?
And yes, our liberal democracy is better than having a king. But guess what, that’s old news. Even Great Britain figured it out. Better to ponder how much socialism the Framers would have built into their system had they known how disastrously unbridled capitalism would eventually fail us.
And finally, you said, “Intelligence is using past knowledge to come up with new solutions…” and my point is, no it isn’t. That isn’t what intelligence is at all. Hence my link to a proper definition. You sure are slow these days, Guy. Have you been sick or something?
By the way boys, The IBD poll is completely bogus:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/ibdtipp-doctors-poll-is-not-trustworthy.html
Strike three, fellas. You’re outta here.
So basically Anonymous and Bill, your whole defense is based on your information isn’t right – OURS is! Am I getting this straight?
Well, the information I get…is from my own experiences; not all that educated learnin’! You on the other hand will believe what you want from whatever dumpster it comes out of because you can’t stand not getting your way. Palin, Bush, Obama…
So you may not LIKE the term Sophomoric, but that’s the way you two act!
BTW, the Baucus Bill stinks. And is a good example of what’s comming out of Washington….by November!? We aren’t going for quality here; are we?
I’m talking about the validity of the two polls, Guy. One is garbage — the one you call yours. I wouldn’t claim it if I were you, but hey, it’s your call, champ. It’s not like you’re battin’ 1000 here or anything.
Bill, I’ve always said ALL polls are worthless in a debate! So, I don’t have any polls to be considered. I’m dealing in facts, quality health care costs money…government has a tract record of failing…once you get something for free you don’t want to pay for it.
If your shootin’ for sophomoric, yes Bill, you’re battin 1000!
So you don’t have to go bankrupt and lose the family estate when one of your kids gets cancer from second hand smoke.
So YOU have bad insurance!? YOU have kids anywhere around second hand smoke!?
I believe you have no stake in losing your coverage and are scared by Obamas’/Congress’ dramatization of the situation. I know no one personally who can’t get health care and I know many people who need it and give it!
You might want to work on getting people health care instead of giving them a card with the Presidential seal on it!
Chances are your grandparents have health insurance with the Government Seal on it, Guy. Chances are you will too someday.
Each one had it right before they died. Oddly enough it didn’t keep them healthy. If it was the Health Care that killed them, I would’ve rather have had that Obamacare which doesn’t kill people!
Wether they had insurance or not, it didn’t improve the quality of care they recieved! Neither will Obamacare! The only changes with government care is that the cost will increase and the quality will decrease.
Keep pushing your plan, Bill! It’s faaaaantastic!
PP:
This is awesome! Do you think the Liberals will take time to read this?