For Health Care Reform to Succeed

[SmarterthanYou]

"All too often" you read?

I'm sorry, that is not a good substitute for evidence.

you're right. one shouldn't believe anything that L.A. times publishes.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You miss the point. The debate in health care is not about quality of health care service. The quality of health care service in the US quite possibly the best in the world. That's not the issue. The issue in the US about health care is availability, access and cost.

What is currently being proposed by you and the idiots on Capitol Hill, will ultimately deliver WORSE quality care, LESS availability, and HIGHER cost. You can't suddenly start providing health care for millions of people at little or no cost to them, and expect the cost to go down, it just defies reason and logic. Whether it is health insurance or the actual health care itself, the more you "make it available" the more it will be used, and the more it is used, the more it will cost. Nothing currently on the table even addresses the cost of health care, except to say, if you can't afford it, Joe Taxpayer will foot the bill.

In order to deal with the COST of health care, you have to attack problems which drive cost. The effects of outrageous and frivolous lawsuits have driven the cost of malpractice insurance through the roof, and every practicing physician HAS to pay for this. How can they pay for it? Well, they only have one ultimate source of income, right? Now, this is where your liberal hearts start bleeding all over the place and alter your ability to be reasonable. People should indeed be able to seek damages for negligence and malpractice, no one is saying they shouldn't, but the level of the rewards has gotten absurd, and there seems to be no limits whatsoever being imposed. I think at some point, we have to say... okay, you were injured through no fault of your own and are entitled to a monetary compensation, but this isn't the NY State Lottery, and Ed McMahon isn't going to show up at your door with a big check. AND... although Ambulance Chasers would have to find a legitimate source of income, it would help to regulate them as well. They simply shouldn't be able to run 24/7 commercials on TV, essentially saying, hey guys... come join us in our ass raping of the makers of 'Utopium' because there may be a buck in it for you!

I am not sure how you solve the illegal immigrant problem in our emergency rooms without first solving the illegal immigration problem, but this is another factor driving up the cost. Here we have people who aren't even paying taxes, aren't even on the grid, and yet we are required to provide them with medical care in ER's across the country. Just as it is with malpractice insurance, SOMEONE has to pay for this! Ultimately, in a capitalist system, that SOMEONE is the consumer.

Yet another area driving cost, is unfunded federal mandates and regulations. Things the health care industry simply HAS to do, regardless of how much it costs them to do it, because the government says so. A lot of this is just restrictive, controlling, bureaucratic red tape, and either redundant or obsolete, or both. From a free-market perspective, one of the most crucial things is government prohibiting health insurance companies from crossing state lines, like in the auto insurance industry. To do this, would automatically create a thing us capitalists like to call... COMPETITION! You communists may not be aware, but generally speaking, it is this competition thingy which causes lower prices for the consumer. No, really... It does!

 

[Cypress]

What is currently being proposed by you and the idiots on Capitol Hill, will ultimately deliver WORSE quality care, LESS availability, and HIGHER cost.

You can't suddenly start providing health care for millions of people at little or no cost to them, and expect the cost to go down, it just defies reason and logic!

Comparison of HealthCare Costs: United States vs. Countries with Universal or Single Payer Public Health Insurance




Yo, and Dixie don’t try to spin your way out of this with the laughable, and extremely lame, Rush Limbaugh talking point that our nation is “too big” to have public health insurance.

We already provide decent public health insurance for more people than France, Canada, or Britain do..

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Comparison of HealthCare Costs: United States vs. Countries with Universal or Single Payer Public Health Insurance




Yo, and Dixie don’t try to spin your way out of this with the laughable, and extremely lame, Rush Limbaugh talking point that our nation is “too big” to have public health insurance.

We already provide decent public health insurance for more people than France, Canada, or Britain do..

Dear dolt...

I know you are too ignorant to comprehend the difference between countries in population density, but I shall endeavor once again to put that information in front of you. Population density is not the sole reason our costs are higher, but it IS a factor. So do try not to get off on one of your moronic strawman building quests pretending that I am saying it is the SOLE reason. Also if you are unable to address the points and feel you must resort to lame ass attempts at lumping people in with idiots like Rush and hannity, well, just be aware that your ignorance is already noted and there is no need for you to go to the trouble proving what a tool we already know you are.

Now, if you can actually be honest for once... do try to address this question....

Is it more cost efficient to treat a million people in one city or a million people spread out in 25 cities each no closer than 100 miles to another?

Just take your time gumby... it will come to you.... be honest... and address the question for ONCE in your pathetic life...

 

[Good Luck]

You also didn't read the section in which I stated technology is one of the big factors affecting cost. Does regulation impact the cost of technology? Yes but it's not the only factor and you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Those regulations are in place to protect the public from illegitimate medical practices, bogus technologies and snake oil peddlars. All modern nations have such regulatory systems, the US is in no way unique there. If those modern nations can address the issue of the cost of technology with out undermining consumer and public protections then so can we. In other words, your argument is with out merit.

Technology in other sectors do not driver up costs. In fact, technology in other sectors help bring down costs. But then, technology in other sectors is not regulated in the degree that medical technology is.

I already mentioned keeping the regulations that actually protect the public from snake oil salesmen. In fact, I was the first to use the snake oil salesmen reference. It's the inane, redundant, keep-this-government-bureaucrat-employed regulations we need to get rid of. (Probably about 19 in 20 can go)

As for other countries, they do not experience the level of costs because, in most cases, they wait for the good ol' U.S. to develop the technologies at our expense, then subsidize the purchase of (or copy) those technologies for their own use. Much cheaper that way.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dear dolt...

I know you are too ignorant to comprehend the difference between countries in population density, but I shall endeavor once again to put that information in front of you. Population density is not the sole reason our costs are higher, but it IS a factor. So do try not to get off on one of your moronic strawman building quests pretending that I am saying it is the SOLE reason. Also if you are unable to address the points and feel you must resort to lame ass attempts at lumping people in with idiots like Rush and hannity, well, just be aware that your ignorance is already noted and there is no need for you to go to the trouble proving what a tool we already know you are.

Now, if you can actually be honest for once... do try to address this question....

Is it more cost efficient to treat a million people in one city or a million people spread out in 25 cities each no closer than 100 miles to another?

Just take your time gumby... it will come to you.... be honest... and address the question for ONCE in your pathetic life...

That's a lame argument SF. Know why? Cause population density doesn't drive up health care cost. In fact, as I stated earlier and if you noticed, neither Dixie or Goodluck addressed a single one of the points I made about the factors that drive up cost. The reason your argument is lame is that presently we are at over capacity. We have more doctors per capita then any nation in the world. We have a average empty bed rate in hospitals of around 45%. Those factors do drive up cost and they are stark evidence that population density plays virtually no role what so ever on cost.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, I read your post and responded in total. I didn't break it down into individual parts and address it point by point, because frankly, you didn't make any points. All I read was a bunch of unfounded blather and your opinion based on how you view the real world.

For health care reform to work, first there must be reform! Presently, we don't have reform, we have a complete dismantling of an entire capitalist system and replacing it with a socialist system. We already know from past history, this will not ever work, and can only lead to worse health care quality for every American. Still, you press forward with your Fascist ideas and philosophies of how you would make this work, even when the majority of America is in total disagreement with you.

Oh Dixie that is just complete and total ideological nonsense. It's just Rush Limbaugh talking points. In no way is our health care system being dismantled. We are only doing what other wealthy, industrialized nations have done. We are identifying our health care priorities and goals and identifying the problems that need to be resolved. Whether you like it or not we can't bankrupt this nation so that a handful of insurance companies can be megawealthy while a third of the population is either underserved or not served at all. Ya know Dixie, private schools didn't go out of business nor was our educational system dismantled when our nation decided on the public option for universal education, did it?

The two main issues that are being addressed by refore are financing health care services and controlling costs. You not only didn't address the points I made, you just went off on a right wing rant that had virtually nothing to do with information I provided. Nor did you address the points I've made about financing health care reform and controlling costs. I've identified the factors impacting health care cost and I've identified other nations who have succesfully dealt with this issue and pointed out some of their solutions and ask the question, which you completely ignore, "if they can do it, why can't we?"

You don't want to solve problems, you just want to stand on a soap box and call people commies because your leader Rush doesn't like them.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Technology in other sectors do not driver up costs. In fact, technology in other sectors help bring down costs. But then, technology in other sectors is not regulated in the degree that medical technology is.

That's because if the technology doesn't work in industry you don't bury your mistakes.

I already mentioned keeping the regulations that actually protect the public from snake oil salesmen. In fact, I was the first to use the snake oil salesmen reference. It's the inane, redundant, keep-this-government-bureaucrat-employed regulations we need to get rid of. (Probably about 19 in 20 can go)

You're missing the point. If if you were correct about over regulation (and I think your being niave to a large extent) other modern nations have the same level and degree of regulation in the health care industry as we do, yet they have achieved reasonable solutions, why can't we?

As for other countries, they do not experience the level of costs because, in most cases, they wait for the good ol' U.S. to develop the technologies at our expense, then subsidize the purchase of (or copy) those technologies for their own use. Much cheaper that way.

Dude, that's just utterly untrue and has no basis in fact. Japan, for example, is the leader in imaging technology. Most of the MRI's used in the USA were developed and manufactured in Japan and exported to this nation. Switzerland is a leader in the pharmacuetical industry. Their regulations for new drug testing protocols is even more stringent then the FDA. Besides, developing technology is just part of the cost. The big cost is purchasing and using the technology. As I stated, it's the over capacity and over use of technology (over using MRI imaging for example) that drives up costs. You failed to address this point.

 

[Good Luck]

That's because if the technology doesn't work in industry you don't bury your mistakes.

What does that have to do with it. Technology makes the goals of the industry easier to attain. That is the entire purpose of technology. In the business world technology makes things easier, so it is less expensive to accomplish. Medical technology is expensive because following regulations in its development and use keep it expensive.

You're missing the point. If if you were correct about over regulation (and I think your being niave to a large extent) other modern nations have the same level and degree of regulation in the health care industry as we do, yet they have achieved reasonable solutions, why can't we?

It is you who is grossly naive. Why is it easier in other countries to get new drugs approved if their regulations are equivalent to ours. The fact is they are NOT equivalent to ours.

Dude, that's just utterly untrue and has no basis in fact. Japan, for example, is the leader in imaging technology. Most of the MRI's used in the USA were developed and manufactured in Japan and exported to this nation. Switzerland is a leader in the pharmacuetical industry. Their regulations for new drug testing protocols is even more stringent then the FDA. Besides, developing technology is just part of the cost. The big cost is purchasing and using the technology. As I stated, it's the over capacity and over use of technology (over using MRI imaging for example) that drives up costs. You failed to address this point.

Dude, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. For instance, MRI technology was invented and developed right here in the U.S.A. The fact that Japan has taken that technology and are turning out better equipment for less cost is more related to the way we screwed up our own manufacturing economy than medical costs. But in the end a UNITED STATES company originally developed the technology, at great costs due to both necessary and unnecessary regulations, and then lost out because other countries have the ability to take advantage of our screwed up system.

Then importing the machines is expensive, again due to federal regulations on medical equipment, and operating the equipment is unduly expensive due to combined factors of over regulation and liability protection expenses.

And yes I did address the overuse of diagnostic tools (try reading with comprehension instead of prejudice.) - it is prompted by the need to avoid lawsuits. People go in after an accident and get an xray or two to check for broken bones. Turns out they have a soft tissue injury (which xrays won't catch) that causes them problems later. They sue for the hospital not diagnosing their injuries properly, and win a bunch of money - usually way more than the incident should have called for because of the idiocy and entitlement attitudes of our society in general. So now when an accident victim comes in, they over diagnose to protect themselves.

 

[christiefan915]

gonna disagree with part of this. all too often I see or read about some higher up government official from one of these so called high quality healthcare nations coming to the USA for some highly developed and very intricate procedure because either there isn't a doctor in their nation able to do it or the wait to have it done is longer than they care to wait, so they use their own money from their millions to obtain the care they feel they need. No, I cannot buy that other nations healthcare systems are higher quality. I will buy that it's less expensive than ours, but that appears to be the tradeoff.

With attempting to fix the problem of expensive healthcare from the wrong end of the animal, they've handcuffed themselves in to a poorer state of health care services. Why should we follow that path?

Using a bell curve, most people needing health care don't fall into the category of needing highly-developed and intricate procedures. They're just trying to get decent, affordable coverage for generally routine problems.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

For health care reform to suceed there are some principles that the American public will have to understand.

#1. We presently do not have a health care system in the US. We have a health care market. A health care market cannot control prices. Supply and Demand will. Markets will focus on profits and not healt care access and availability of basic services. There for limits must be placed on the market.
#2. To reform health care we must identify the problem. The problem with US health care is that it has a poor cost benefit ratio. 40 million do not have insurance, 30 million more are underinsured. Those who do have insurance have to worry about if they can pay and going bankrupt and there is a vast differance in health care quality based upon the ability to pay.
#3. We must recognise that access to health care and basic health care services are a fundamental human right.
#4. No one should ever have to go bankrupt or deeply into debt because they or a loved one becomes ill or injured.
#5. Competition is an essential element to any succesful health care system.

Understanding these 5 concepts there are 3 principles that we can adopt to resolve this issue in our country. Only two of these are being addressed by the present health care reform legislation. Eventually this should lead to the third reform.

#1. Insurance companies must accept everyone and can't make a profit on basic care. Nor can they deny coverage for basic care.
#2. Everybody's mandated to buy insurance, and the government pays the premium for the poor.
#3. Doctors and hospitals have to accept one standard set of fixed prices.

By adopting these reforms we can address the two major problems of reforming our health care system. Financing a health care system and cost control of health care. Reforms #1 and 2 address financing health care. #3 covers cost.

The current proposes legislation only covers financing health care reform. It does not yet adress cost control.

You're describing an authoritarian healthcare monopoly.

Monopolies always result in rising prices and rationing, degradation and shortages. This effects of monopoly are the reason for the trust busting legislation we do have.

you understand little of economics.

 

[christiefan915]

<snip>

Maybe you could look into the federal regulations governing the manufacture and operation of MRI equipment, since you had to deal with the costs of having one. While you're at it, look into the number of lawsuits - and how much they cost the hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies - resulting from undiagnosed soft tissue injuries in accidents.

<snip>

Focusing on this paragraph, here's an excerpt from an interview on NPR re: MRIs in Pensacola, Fl.

JOFFE-WALT: Which is what makes our next stop really confusing: we're in Pensacola, Florida hanging out with this guy Brad Myers. Brad used to work for a big health insurance company down here. He was a numbers guy, and he tells us every single day, he would see this basic rule completely violated.

KESTENBAUM: Prices that were all over the place. Patients dont notice because they're covered by insurance but not everyone has insurance, so he's been putting together a Web site that compares prices for all kinds of procedures. It's called newhealthchoice.com.

We asked about MRI prices, and he took out a map of Pensacola.

Mr. BRAD MYERS (Founder, New Choice Health, Inc.): At example, an MRI of the shoulder, go to Davis Highway and get the MRI at this Pensacola Open MRI Center for $400 to $450. Or you could take a right on Bayou Boulevard and go to Sacred Heart and have it done for twice that 800 to 850.

JOFFE-WALT: For double the amount.

Mr. MYERS: Double the amount.

JOFFE-WALT: And these two places are down the street from each other?

Mr. MYERS: Within a mile.

JOFFE-WALT: So we went to visit that hospital, Sacred Heart, to figure out how this was possible, and we talked with Mike Smith, their vice president, who deals with all the prices and negotiates with insurance companies. And he says, yes, we charge a lot. Actually, it's more than that. It's about $900. And sure, that is probably more than the out-patient place down the street.

KESTENBAUM: Then he says this thing that may sound a little weird. That $900, thats not the cost of doing the MRI plus some profit margin. Actually that $900, thats basically a made-up number.

Mr. MIKE SMITH (Vice President, Sacred Heart Hospital): The cost of that MRI is not going to be reflected anywhere on that bill. Thats not part of what you see. Thats not part of what we bill.

KESTENBAUM: Hospitals, it turns out, dont negotiate prices with insurance companies for each and everything they do. They negotiate everything altogether in one huge bundle.

JOFFE-WALT: And everything they do is a lot. This place, Sacred Heart, is huge. They have all kinds of fancy equipment that costs a lot. Maybe it's not in use all the time but it's here. We all want the hospital to exist. If I get hit by a car, 3 a.m. tonight, I want the emergency room to be there.

KESTENBAUM: And that 24-hour emergency room, the hospital has to treat everyone who shows up, whether they can pay or not.

Mr. SMITH: That's usually five, six percent, you know, of our bills are uncompensated care.

JOFFE-WALT: So, but does that means that you're giving them you're giving that totally for free?

Mr. SMITH: You know, there are situations where it is fully uncompensated.

KESTENBAUM: You an MBA? Did you go to business school?

Mr. SMITH: I did.

KESTENBAUM: Did they teach you about this business model where you give away stuff for less than it cost?

Mr. SMITH: In the program that I went, in my graduate program, they did.

JOFFE-WALT: Does it seem weird to you? I mean thats weird. It is a business. I mean, this is a business, right?

Mr. SMITH: There are definitely times where it's crazy. It's a unique business. You know, and I can only speak for Sacred Heart. We're in it for, you know, to make a margin. But we're also in it to take care of the community.

JOFFE-WALT: Have you ever gotten a bill where you were charged 50 bucks for a bandage kit or something weird like that, or $10 for an aspirin? This is why. Of course, it doesnt cost the hospital $10 for aspirin. But it cost hospitals millions to stay open all the time, to run an emergency room, to cover people who dont pay. So your $10 aspirin

KESTENBAUM: Or your $900 MRI

JOFFE-WALT: is paying for that.

KESTENBAUM: Mike Smith does warn people to be careful when shopping around. He says not all MRIs are created equal.

JOFFE-WALT: So we get in the car again and we go to the cheaper place. Less than a mile down the road is the Imaging Center of Pensacola. It's run by Sherrin and John Sowers, they're couple. And they say, yeah, not all MRIs are created equal. Ours are better. John Sowers says they have a higher resolution machine than the hospital; a three tesla as opposed to a 1.5 tesla.

Mr. JOHN SOWERS (Co-Owner, The Imaging Center of Pensacola Inc.): For most body exams, but not all the three tesla is preferable, to the shoulder, certainly you would go to the three tesla.

KESTENBAUM: So I would be paying half the price and you'll be putting me in a much fancier, more high resolution machine?

Mr. SOWERS: That's correct. That's correct.

KESTENBAUM: That's sort of amazing.

Mr. SOWERS: Well, thats the way it works.

Ms. SHERRIN SOWERS (Co-Owner, The Imaging Center of Pensacola Inc.): Hmm. One of the best kept secrets in town.

(Soundbite of laughter)

JOFFE-WALT: David, if you think back to the grocery store, if my store's Campbell Soup was twice as much as the soup at your store, my store would go out of business. But health care is different; we dont want our hospitals to go out of business.

KESTENBAUM: But there is a strong economic reason for wanting hospitals to have a real list of prices. Because in a normal marketplace, prices aren't just numbers, they carry information. They're how we tell which places are operating like well-oiled machines, delivering good products at the lowest possible price. Hospitals argue that when you look at all of the care they provide as a whole, thats exactly what they're doing.

JOFFE-WALT: But when you dont have individual prices or if you have price tags that dont mean anything, it gets very hard to tell.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120399265

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Oh Dixie that is just complete and total ideological nonsense. It's just Rush Limbaugh talking points. In no way is our health care system being dismantled. We are only doing what other wealthy, industrialized nations have done. We are identifying our health care priorities and goals and identifying the problems that need to be resolved. Whether you like it or not we can't bankrupt this nation so that a handful of insurance companies can be megawealthy while a third of the population is either underserved or not served at all. Ya know Dixie, private schools didn't go out of business nor was our educational system dismantled when our nation decided on the public option for universal education, did it?

The two main issues that are being addressed by refore are financing health care services and controlling costs. You not only didn't address the points I made, you just went off on a right wing rant that had virtually nothing to do with information I provided. Nor did you address the points I've made about financing health care reform and controlling costs. I've identified the factors impacting health care cost and I've identified other nations who have succesfully dealt with this issue and pointed out some of their solutions and ask the question, which you completely ignore, "if they can do it, why can't we?"

You don't want to solve problems, you just want to stand on a soap box and call people commies because your leader Rush doesn't like them.

First of all, I have no idea what Rush says about this, I haven't listened to him in years. My knowledge and understanding of capitalism and free markets versus socialism and communism, is from years of school studies, not some popular talk show host, but I understand how you put so much stock in people like Olbermann and Matthews.

Secondly, you have not addressed the issue of cost, and what you are proposing will actually drive cost up for everyone, while diminishing quality of care. I explained in detail, exactly how that happens with your plan. You dismiss this as a talking point, but could it be a talking point because it's true?

Thirdly, you can make all the claims you wish about small European socialist systems and their answer to health care, one fact you simply can't get around is, they don't have the best quality health care system in the world, because WE DO!

Finally... let me address this stupidity: "a handful of insurance companies can be megawealthy while a third of the population is either underserved or not served at all" I guess it's not good enough to tell one lie per sentence, you have to go for the old double lie? As I said before, health insurance companies make, on average, 4% profit. No one is getting rich in healthcare insurance, if you don't believe me, go check the stock histories of ANY health insurance company, and tell me what you find! So you are absolutely flat out wrong on this one point, yet you continue to make assumptions and draw conclusions based on ignorance of truth. Next is this myth that a third of the population is under-served or not served. Again, indigent care laws were passed in the 1980s, and every medical facility in America is obligated by law, to render emergency medical service to any person, regardless of ability to pay or even legality as a citizen. Health clinics operated by the state, are available to everyone in America at little or no cost. So the very idea that some people can't get health care is absurd. It is certainly made available in every major American city at little or no cost at all.

What we are left with, is your emotional-driven nitwitisms. You can't help letting envy and jealousy of what others might have, cloud your judgment and comprehension of fact. It's easier for you to believe the absurd, and think there is a way to realize Utopia, if we would only take wealth from these people and give it to those. Nothing you have suggested, would cause the cost of health insurance to go down, it is impossible for that to happen, if the insurance is forced to cover everyone. The availability CAN NOT increase by dramatically increasing demand! Your very own reasoning has our current health care system taking on an additional third of the population (those who are underserved or not served), so how can you ADD a third more clients, yet be more available? It is impossible and defies any common sense or logic to believe this. Still... it's what you believe!

Not to mention those ever-elusive "unintended consequences" that liberals never seem to realize or think about until ten years down the road, when Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are staring stupidly into the cameras and telling us that we didn't see this coming... we didn't know all the doctors were going to quit and throw our entire health care system into chaos... so now we have to pass this multi-trillion dollar government program to train new doctors! And it fucking never ends with liberals, they will keep heaping failed government programs on top of other failures, and pass the cost on to the next generation.

I want you to all think about this for a moment... Currently, if we have a problem with our insurance coverage, we call a toll-free number and talk to the insurance company... Anyone who has done this will admit it is sometimes wrought with frustration, but we do have some means of recourse, there is a toll-free number to call! Think about how it will be when the government takes this over... do you think we'll have a toll-free number? Will there be any recourse for the consumer, or will we get a pre-recorded message and the usual indifference we get from government in every other area they hold a monopoly on?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

<snip>

Maybe you could look into the federal regulations governing the manufacture and operation of MRI equipment, since you had to deal with the costs of having one. While you're at it, look into the number of lawsuits - and how much they cost the hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies - resulting from undiagnosed soft tissue injuries in accidents.

<snip>

Focusing on this paragraph, here's an excerpt from an interview on NPR re: MRIs in Pensacola, Fl.

JOFFE-WALT: Which is what makes our next stop really confusing: we're in Pensacola, Florida hanging out with this guy Brad Myers. Brad used to work for a big health insurance company down here. He was a numbers guy, and he tells us every single day, he would see this basic rule completely violated.

KESTENBAUM: Prices that were all over the place. Patients dont notice because they're covered by insurance but not everyone has insurance, so he's been putting together a Web site that compares prices for all kinds of procedures. It's called newhealthchoice.com.

We asked about MRI prices, and he took out a map of Pensacola.

Mr. BRAD MYERS (Founder, New Choice Health, Inc.): At example, an MRI of the shoulder, go to Davis Highway and get the MRI at this Pensacola Open MRI Center for $400 to $450. Or you could take a right on Bayou Boulevard and go to Sacred Heart and have it done for twice that 800 to 850.

JOFFE-WALT: For double the amount.

Mr. MYERS: Double the amount.

JOFFE-WALT: And these two places are down the street from each other?

Mr. MYERS: Within a mile.

JOFFE-WALT: So we went to visit that hospital, Sacred Heart, to figure out how this was possible, and we talked with Mike Smith, their vice president, who deals with all the prices and negotiates with insurance companies. And he says, yes, we charge a lot. Actually, it's more than that. It's about $900. And sure, that is probably more than the out-patient place down the street.

KESTENBAUM: Then he says this thing that may sound a little weird. That $900, thats not the cost of doing the MRI plus some profit margin. Actually that $900, thats basically a made-up number.

Mr. MIKE SMITH (Vice President, Sacred Heart Hospital): The cost of that MRI is not going to be reflected anywhere on that bill. Thats not part of what you see. Thats not part of what we bill.

KESTENBAUM: Hospitals, it turns out, dont negotiate prices with insurance companies for each and everything they do. They negotiate everything altogether in one huge bundle.

JOFFE-WALT: And everything they do is a lot. This place, Sacred Heart, is huge. They have all kinds of fancy equipment that costs a lot. Maybe it's not in use all the time but it's here. We all want the hospital to exist. If I get hit by a car, 3 a.m. tonight, I want the emergency room to be there.

KESTENBAUM: And that 24-hour emergency room, the hospital has to treat everyone who shows up, whether they can pay or not.

Mr. SMITH: That's usually five, six percent, you know, of our bills are uncompensated care.

JOFFE-WALT: So, but does that means that you're giving them you're giving that totally for free?

Mr. SMITH: You know, there are situations where it is fully uncompensated.

KESTENBAUM: You an MBA? Did you go to business school?

Mr. SMITH: I did.

KESTENBAUM: Did they teach you about this business model where you give away stuff for less than it cost?

Mr. SMITH: In the program that I went, in my graduate program, they did.

JOFFE-WALT: Does it seem weird to you? I mean thats weird. It is a business. I mean, this is a business, right?

Mr. SMITH: There are definitely times where it's crazy. It's a unique business. You know, and I can only speak for Sacred Heart. We're in it for, you know, to make a margin. But we're also in it to take care of the community.

JOFFE-WALT: Have you ever gotten a bill where you were charged 50 bucks for a bandage kit or something weird like that, or $10 for an aspirin? This is why. Of course, it doesnt cost the hospital $10 for aspirin. But it cost hospitals millions to stay open all the time, to run an emergency room, to cover people who dont pay. So your $10 aspirin

KESTENBAUM: Or your $900 MRI

JOFFE-WALT: is paying for that.

KESTENBAUM: Mike Smith does warn people to be careful when shopping around. He says not all MRIs are created equal.

JOFFE-WALT: So we get in the car again and we go to the cheaper place. Less than a mile down the road is the Imaging Center of Pensacola. It's run by Sherrin and John Sowers, they're couple. And they say, yeah, not all MRIs are created equal. Ours are better. John Sowers says they have a higher resolution machine than the hospital; a three tesla as opposed to a 1.5 tesla.

Mr. JOHN SOWERS (Co-Owner, The Imaging Center of Pensacola Inc.): For most body exams, but not all the three tesla is preferable, to the shoulder, certainly you would go to the three tesla.

KESTENBAUM: So I would be paying half the price and you'll be putting me in a much fancier, more high resolution machine?

Mr. SOWERS: That's correct. That's correct.

KESTENBAUM: That's sort of amazing.

Mr. SOWERS: Well, thats the way it works.

Ms. SHERRIN SOWERS (Co-Owner, The Imaging Center of Pensacola Inc.): Hmm. One of the best kept secrets in town.

(Soundbite of laughter)

JOFFE-WALT: David, if you think back to the grocery store, if my store's Campbell Soup was twice as much as the soup at your store, my store would go out of business. But health care is different; we dont want our hospitals to go out of business.

KESTENBAUM: But there is a strong economic reason for wanting hospitals to have a real list of prices. Because in a normal marketplace, prices aren't just numbers, they carry information. They're how we tell which places are operating like well-oiled machines, delivering good products at the lowest possible price. Hospitals argue that when you look at all of the care they provide as a whole, thats exactly what they're doing.

JOFFE-WALT: But when you dont have individual prices or if you have price tags that dont mean anything, it gets very hard to tell.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120399265

This goes right back to one of my earlier points about what affects cost. Consumers are unaware of the ultimate costs of their health care expenses because insurance is paying the bill.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

First of all, I have no idea what Rush says about this, I haven't listened to him in years. My knowledge and understanding of capitalism and free markets versus socialism and communism, is from years of school studies, not some popular talk show host, but I understand how you put so much stock in people like Olbermann and Matthews.

Secondly, you have not addressed the issue of cost, and what you are proposing will actually drive cost up for everyone, while diminishing quality of care. I explained in detail, exactly how that happens with your plan. You dismiss this as a talking point, but could it be a talking point because it's true?

Thirdly, you can make all the claims you wish about small European socialist systems and their answer to health care, one fact you simply can't get around is, they don't have the best quality health care system in the world, because WE DO!

Finally... let me address this stupidity: "a handful of insurance companies can be megawealthy while a third of the population is either underserved or not served at all" I guess it's not good enough to tell one lie per sentence, you have to go for the old double lie? As I said before, health insurance companies make, on average, 4% profit. No one is getting rich in healthcare insurance, if you don't believe me, go check the stock histories of ANY health insurance company, and tell me what you find! So you are absolutely flat out wrong on this one point, yet you continue to make assumptions and draw conclusions based on ignorance of truth. Next is this myth that a third of the population is under-served or not served. Again, indigent care laws were passed in the 1980s, and every medical facility in America is obligated by law, to render emergency medical service to any person, regardless of ability to pay or even legality as a citizen. Health clinics operated by the state, are available to everyone in America at little or no cost. So the very idea that some people can't get health care is absurd. It is certainly made available in every major American city at little or no cost at all.

What we are left with, is your emotional-driven nitwitisms. You can't help letting envy and jealousy of what others might have, cloud your judgment and comprehension of fact. It's easier for you to believe the absurd, and think there is a way to realize Utopia, if we would only take wealth from these people and give it to those. Nothing you have suggested, would cause the cost of health insurance to go down, it is impossible for that to happen, if the insurance is forced to cover everyone. The availability CAN NOT increase by dramatically increasing demand! Your very own reasoning has our current health care system taking on an additional third of the population (those who are underserved or not served), so how can you ADD a third more clients, yet be more available? It is impossible and defies any common sense or logic to believe this. Still... it's what you believe!

Not to mention those ever-elusive "unintended consequences" that liberals never seem to realize or think about until ten years down the road, when Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are staring stupidly into the cameras and telling us that we didn't see this coming... we didn't know all the doctors were going to quit and throw our entire health care system into chaos... so now we have to pass this multi-trillion dollar government program to train new doctors! And it fucking never ends with liberals, they will keep heaping failed government programs on top of other failures, and pass the cost on to the next generation.

I want you to all think about this for a moment... Currently, if we have a problem with our insurance coverage, we call a toll-free number and talk to the insurance company... Anyone who has done this will admit it is sometimes wrought with frustration, but we do have some means of recourse, there is a toll-free number to call! Think about how it will be when the government takes this over... do you think we'll have a toll-free number? Will there be any recourse for the consumer, or will we get a pre-recorded message and the usual indifference we get from government in every other area they hold a monopoly on?

Dixie, that's pure fear mongering based on ignorance and political ideology. I've demonstrated that other nations (and last I heard Germany, France, Japan, etc, are hardly small countries) have used these exact principles to cut their cost as a percent of GNP to less then half of what we pay while achieving a higher level of health care quality across the board then we do. So these facts completely contradict your baseless ranting. The truth is, if they can do it, and achieve a higher level of access and service and substantially lower cost, then so can we by applying the same principles that they have. You can ignore the facts I've listed all you want but it aint going to solve the problem.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What does that have to do with it. Technology makes the goals of the industry easier to attain. That is the entire purpose of technology. In the business world technology makes things easier, so it is less expensive to accomplish. Medical technology is expensive because following regulations in its development and use keep it expensive.


It is you who is grossly naive. Why is it easier in other countries to get new drugs approved if their regulations are equivalent to ours. The fact is they are NOT equivalent to ours.


Dude, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. For instance, MRI technology was invented and developed right here in the U.S.A. The fact that Japan has taken that technology and are turning out better equipment for less cost is more related to the way we screwed up our own manufacturing economy than medical costs. But in the end a UNITED STATES company originally developed the technology, at great costs due to both necessary and unnecessary regulations, and then lost out because other countries have the ability to take advantage of our screwed up system.

Then importing the machines is expensive, again due to federal regulations on medical equipment, and operating the equipment is unduly expensive due to combined factors of over regulation and liability protection expenses.

And yes I did address the overuse of diagnostic tools (try reading with comprehension instead of prejudice.) - it is prompted by the need to avoid lawsuits. People go in after an accident and get an xray or two to check for broken bones. Turns out they have a soft tissue injury (which xrays won't catch) that causes them problems later. They sue for the hospital not diagnosing their injuries properly, and win a bunch of money - usually way more than the incident should have called for because of the idiocy and entitlement attitudes of our society in general. So now when an accident victim comes in, they over diagnose to protect themselves.

That does indeed have a cost but your overstating it. As I said previously, that defensive medicine cost us annually, across the board, about a 1% increase in physician services. As time goes by that adds up to some very real costs. But that is minor compared to the other cost factors which I listed. As for regulations. I suggest you do some real homework and look at the regulatory framework of the other wealthy industrial nations and then come back and try to tell me they don't have the degree of regulation we do. That's just totally laughable. If you don't accept that fact, then your arguing from a false premise.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Dixie, that's pure fear mongering based on ignorance and political ideology. I've demonstrated that other nations (and last I heard Germany, France, Japan, etc, are hardly small countries) have used these exact principles to cut their cost as a percent of GNP to less then half of what we pay while achieving a higher level of health care quality across the board then we do. So these facts completely contradict your baseless ranting. The truth is, if they can do it, and achieve a higher level of access and service and substantially lower cost, then so can we by applying the same principles that they have. You can ignore the facts I've listed all you want but it aint going to solve the problem.

I guess you don't know, probably intentionally, that soaring costs are pushing France's universal health-care system into a crisis.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, that's pure fear mongering based on ignorance and political ideology. I've demonstrated that other nations (and last I heard Germany, France, Japan, etc, are hardly small countries) have used these exact principles to cut their cost as a percent of GNP to less then half of what we pay while achieving a higher level of health care quality across the board then we do. So these facts completely contradict your baseless ranting. The truth is, if they can do it, and achieve a higher level of access and service and substantially lower cost, then so can we by applying the same principles that they have. You can ignore the facts I've listed all you want but it aint going to solve the problem.

I'm not ignoring facts, I am straight up saying you are lying about the facts and don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I don't know about cost of health care in Germany, France and Japan, but I do know this, they can't have the best quality health care, because we have the best. I also know personally, that Germany has a waiting list for major surgery, because a friend of mine is currently on the list. So you can go blow smoke up someone elses ass, I'm not buying your bullshit.

Let's clarify once more for the slow... NOTHING you have proposed or supported as of yet, addresses the rising cost of medical care in America. Your plan, if anything, will cause the price to dramatically increase while decreasing availability and quality. Simply changing who pays for health care insurance, doesn't control cost of health care! Making something available to everybody, guarantees less availability, it can't do anything else... defies logic.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm not ignoring facts, I am straight up saying you are lying about the facts and don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I don't know about cost of health care in Germany, France and Japan, but I do know this, they can't have the best quality health care, because we have the best. I also know personally, that Germany has a waiting list for major surgery, because a friend of mine is currently on the list. So you can go blow smoke up someone elses ass, I'm not buying your bullshit.

Let's clarify once more for the slow... NOTHING you have proposed or supported as of yet, addresses the rising cost of medical care in America. Your plan, if anything, will cause the price to dramatically increase while decreasing availability and quality. Simply changing who pays for health care insurance, doesn't control cost of health care! Making something available to everybody, guarantees less availability, it can't do anything else... defies logic.

I obtained my facts from peer reviewed sources. Want me to post them? We have the best health care? That's laughable Dixie. We rank 37th in the world overal health which includes such statistics as life expectency, mortality and morbity rates, preventable deaths and infant mortality rates. You simply don't know what you're talking about (again). We also pay the most as a percent of GNP on any large or industrialized nation in the world. Most nations pay about 6 to 8% of GNP. The USA pays nearly 16%!! Why is that Dixie? Why do we pay so much more but achieve such lower results?

As for financing health care. If you don't believe that securing financing for national health care wouldn't have a dramatic impact on cost then your a fool and an ignoramous and shouldn't even be debating the subject. That's just an utterably laughable notion Dixie! LOL

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I obtained my facts from peer reviewed sources. Want me to post them? We have the best health care? That's laughable Dixie. We rank about 30th of industrial nations in life expectency, mortality and morbity rates and infant mortality rates. You simply don't know what you're talking about (again). As for financing health care. If you don't believe that securing financing for national health care wouldn't have a dramatic impact on cost then your a fool and an ignoramous and shouldn't even be debating the subject. That's just an utterably laughable notion Dixie! LOL

Peer reviewed sources, eh? The same sources which determined global warming was real, before we discovered it wasn't? 'Peer reviewed' means one thing to me when I hear it... that some upper-echelon pinheads looked at it and agreed with lower-echelon pinheads. It has nothing to do with validity or accuracy.

We may rank 30th in mortality, morbidity, life expectancy, whatever... but we have the best quality health care in the world. That was what I said, and all these other things do not refute that fact. Sorry! From a technology and research standpoint, from a state-of-the-art equipment standpoint, from collective education and training of doctors standpoint, we are head and shoulders above any other nation, and have been for decades.

Since when does securing financing for something have a damn thing to do with how much it costs? We are looking at upwards of 10 trillion dollars or more, for nationalized health care. The current debacle Democrats are trying to ram down our throat, is structured so that the bulk of the cost is not realized until 12 years down the road, when all your regime of socialist misfits are long gone from public office. Conveniently, the CBO only figures the cost of a program over the next 10 years (not 12) so this monstrosity appears to not cost as much as it ultimately will.

Now you can throw out all kinds of "facts" and "figures" and claim they have been "peer reviewed" or whatever, this all boils down to simple logic and common sense. There is NO way to guarantee every American health care, and health insurance, without dramatically increasing the cost to every American across the board. There is just not a way to do it. There is no way to add 40 million people to the burden already faced by the health care industry, and expect more availability, that defies logic completely. So there are two of your biggest objectives, shot completely to hell by simple logic. When you start trying to rectify either of these problems, you will dramatically effect quality of health care as well. So much for your idea.