From the Dean of Harvard Medical

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html

I know... a few on the board will see this is an op-ed piece in the WSJ and will immediately attack the article based on that alone.

For the rest of you... this article addresses the biggest problem with the current health care bills. They do not address rising COSTS.

 

[Topspin]

great piece, I totally agree
and I bought IHF as a hedge against the retards passing this garbage bill.
It's a massive tranfer of wealth from the haves to the havenots

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html

I know... a few on the board will see this is an op-ed piece in the WSJ and will immediately attack the article based on that alone.

For the rest of you... this article addresses the biggest problem with the current health care bills. They do not address rising COSTS.

That is correct. The current health care reform legislation essentially addresses financing health care. It does not address controlling cost. That will almost certainly come later.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That is correct. The current health care reform legislation essentially addresses financing health care. It does not address controlling cost. That will almost certainly come later.

well thats pretty fucking backwards. shouldn't one address cost controls first, and THEN when you know how much you're going to pay, finance it?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

great piece, I totally agree
and I bought IHF as a hedge against the retards passing this garbage bill.
It's a massive tranfer of wealth from the haves to the havenots

I agree. It's a good article. The current legislation only addresses access and financing that access. It doesn't address cost or quality of outcome.

But let's call a spade a spade Topper. You could care less about patient care or quality of outcome. You are only concerned about your ROI.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That is correct. The current health care reform legislation essentially addresses financing health care. It does not address controlling cost. That will almost certainly come later.

Yet the problem lies with COSTS.

Addressing the COSTS is what needs to be done. Reduce the costs and the 'financing' becomes a whole lot easier.

 

[Topspin]

I agree. It's a good article. The current legislation only addresses access and financing that access. It doesn't address cost or quality of outcome.

But let's call a spade a spade Topper. You could care less about patient care or quality of outcome. You are only concerned about your ROI.

I think the little gets fucked by both parties.
But anyone who reads into the details, INCLUDING AND MOSTLY THE COST SHIFTING TO THOSE WHO ALREADY CAN AFFORD HC and doesn't come away with it being a TRILLION DOLLAR TRANSFER OF WEALTH TO THE POOR has never set foot in an economics class.

Now, If I'm making financial gain from the cards that are dealt us. Well, call me all the names you want, I won't be in the gov cheese line.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

well thats pretty fucking backwards. shouldn't one address cost controls first, and THEN when you know how much you're going to pay, finance it?

No, they know how to controll cost. You think financing health care has been ugly that's nothing. Wait till congress starts taking measures on controlling costs. That will get much more ugly. But to answer your question, no, it's the correct order. They need to determine how health care access will be financed before they can begin addressing the issues of cost.

Our congress only seems to function only in crises mode. After addressing financial reforms to health care, which will actually increase expenditures, then that will precipitate a crises in addressing cost control and like I said that will be ugly!

But that is the order in which other wealthy industrial nations have addressed health care reform. First they addressed financing it, they the addressed cost control.

 

[Topspin]

yeah cause they would have sold this pile of shit in a pink bow by calling it HC financing.
that's my point it's a wealth transfer, those who can afford are financing the dope dealers who have not hc.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, they know how to controll cost.

then again, they are approaching all of this ass backwards.

But to answer your question, no, it's the correct order. They need to determine how health care access will be financed before they can begin addressing the issues of cost.

totally wrong. would you address finances in your own home this way?

Our congress only seems to function only in crises mode. After addressing financial reforms to health care, which will actually increase expenditures, then that will precipitate a crises in addressing cost control and like I said that will be ugly!

we really allowed our government to fuck us in the ass and make us beg for it, didn't we?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think the little gets fucked by both parties.
But anyone who reads into the details, INCLUDING AND MOSTLY THE COST SHIFTING TO THOSE WHO ALREADY CAN AFFORD HC and doesn't come away with it being a TRILLION DOLLAR TRANSFER OF WEALTH TO THE POOR has never set foot in an economics class.

Now, If I'm making financial gain from the cards that are dealt us. Well, call me all the names you want, I won't be in the gov cheese line.

True dat and I certainly dont' begrudge you your ROI. Caveat Emptor! If you did the work and took the risk you certainly deserve the return.

I just wanted to remind you that this is not the goal of health care reform. The goals are to improve access, decrease cost and improve quality of outcome in patient care.
These are the major market failures in health care that Wallstreet is ill prepared to manage.

 

[Topspin]

True dat and I certainly dont' begrudge you your ROI. Caveat Emptor! If you did the work and took the risk you certainly deserve the return.

I just wanted to remind you that this is not the goal of health care reform. The goals are to improve access, decrease cost and improve quality of outcome in patient care.
These are the major market failures in health care that Wallstreet is ill prepared to manage.

and that pile of shit bill doesn't really achieve most of the goals. I'm loving me some blue dogs right now.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, they know how to controll cost. You think financing health care has been ugly that's nothing. Wait till congress starts taking measures on controlling costs. That will get much more ugly. But to answer your question, no, it's the correct order. They need to determine how health care access will be financed before they can begin addressing the issues of cost.

Our congress only seems to function only in crises mode. After addressing financial reforms to health care, which will actually increase expenditures, then that will precipitate a crises in addressing cost control and like I said that will be ugly!

But that is the order in which other wealthy industrial nations have addressed health care reform. First they addressed financing it, they the addressed cost control.

That is incorrect. FIRST you address the ever rising costs. That is the biggest problem. THEN you worry about financing the people that need help.

If you address costs first, then more people will be able to afford it without 118 new government agencies mucking up the works.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

then again, they are approaching all of this ass backwards.

No not really.

totally wrong. would you address finances in your own home this way?

Most certainly. I'm going to determine what income I have and how I am going to achieve that incomee before I determine what I will invest that income in and what my costs will be.[/quote]

we really allowed our government to fuck us in the ass and make us beg for it, didn't we?

To early to tell yet, I'm certainly not optimistic. You get the government you deserve and with K-Street running congress I seriously doubt patient outcome is the top priority as it should be but somehow I get the feeling you would say that no matter what the government does.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

True dat and I certainly dont' begrudge you your ROI. Caveat Emptor! If you did the work and took the risk you certainly deserve the return.

I just wanted to remind you that this is not the goal of health care reform. The goals are to improve access, decrease cost and improve quality of outcome in patient care.
These are the major market failures in health care that Wallstreet is ill prepared to manage.

WALLSTREET is not supposed to manage health care.

The quality of care is not an issue. We have the best quality of care in the world. It is the COST factor that is the primary concern. If you address that, you will at the same time be addressing the access as more will be able to afford insurance on their own.

 

[Topspin]

what's the current status,
last I heard there were more than a couple dems saying no.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is incorrect. FIRST you address the ever rising costs. That is the biggest problem. THEN you worry about financing the people that need help.

If you address costs first, then more people will be able to afford it without 118 new government agencies mucking up the works.

I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. You have to determine how and where the money is comming from before you can address the issue of cost. You have it ass backwards. As with any business you need to determine what your economic resource are and where they are coming from and how you are going invest those resources before you can determine what that cost will be let alone how to control that cost.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. You have to determine how and where the money is comming from before you can address the issue of cost. You have it ass backwards. As with any business you need to determine what your economic resource are and where they are coming from and how you are going invest those resources before you can determine what that cost will be let alone how to control that cost.

you do realize that you're proposing the same exact solution that caused the Tech bubble, the housing bubble, the war budget nightmare, and the current economic crisis, right? what sane person would propose to continue that kind of stupidity?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm sorry but that's just plain silly. You have to determine how and where the money is comming from before you can address the issue of cost. You have it ass backwards. As with any business you need to determine what your economic resource are and where they are coming from and how you are going invest those resources before you can determine what that cost will be let alone how to control that cost.

Wrong again. You do NOT enact a bill that will RAISE costs when rising COSTS are the problem. You are simply exacerbating the problem.

The people without health care are not paying anything for insurance. Forcing them to pay for insurance before you make it economically viable to do so is nothing short of moronic.

Forcing those who already pay for health insurance to pay more for health insurance is simply going to increase the number of those who aren't ABLE to pay for insurance. That is moronic.

By reducing costs FIRST, you make the insurance more affordable for those who are already paying into the system and you make it more affordable for those who couldn't afford it before. Thus reducing the amount you need for financing.

If you ran a business and saw that you had $1mm in revenues $1mm in expenses and that you needed $100k in addition to your revenues for health care... what would you do first?

If you knew there were $50k in your expenses that you could reduce... would you finance the $100k or would you cut your expenses first and then finance the remaining $50k?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

WALLSTREET is not supposed to manage health care.

I believe that was my point.

The quality of care is not an issue. We have the best quality of care in the world. It is the COST factor that is the primary concern. If you address that, you will at the same time be addressing the access as more will be able to afford insurance on their own.

Yes, quality of outcome is most certainly an issue. We spend the most money per capita on health care than any other nation on this planet yet our outcome is only 37th in the world. It should be #1. Quality of care is most certainly an issue. Our system is not cost affective. For what we spend we should be getting the best results (outcome) yet we are not.