From the Dean of Harvard Medical

SmarterThanYou said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well I'd like to see you connect those dots! LOL

Let me ask you this, how can you address risings cost when you don't know how your going to finance the system that's going to pay those costs?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well I'd like to see you connect those dots! LOL
Click to expand...
thats simple enough. housing bubble. started by people buying homes they couldn't afford. they didn't look at controlling their costs first, then financing what they could afford. No, they went headfirst getting 400k funding, then looked at controlling their costs and failed.

Mott the Hoople said:
Let me ask you this, how can you address risings cost when you don't know how your going to finance the system that's going to pay those costs?
Click to expand...

it's already been noted several times that financing health care isn't the problem, but affordability. the only way to control affordability is??????

tada, controlling costs.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
thats simple enough. housing bubble. started by people buying homes they couldn't afford. they didn't look at controlling their costs first, then financing what they could afford. No, they went headfirst getting 400k funding, then looked at controlling their costs and failed.



it's already been noted several times that financing health care isn't the problem, but affordability. the only way to control affordability is??????

tada, controlling costs.
Click to expand...

kudo's STY nice turbo-lib business illiterate burn
 
Superfreak said:
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?
Click to expand...
Preferably one would do both but is that politically tenable? You see the hell being raised right now over financing reform. What the hell do you think would happen if the brought up the issues of cost control?

No, they will address the financing aspect of this first then they will address cost control. Keep in mind on financing who is going to manage that financing? Will it be a purely public one payer system? Will it be a purely market system of private insurance companies? Whom will pay who and how? This all needs to be determined before the issue of cost can be addressed because it directly affects cost. What good would it do to implement cost controls for a market based system of private insurance companies only to switch over to a public one payer system?

You can really go round and round circles on this because they are both intimately interelated.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
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?
Click to expand...

Their cost control is going to be letting old people and babies die. That's why they have to get control before they can unveil the PLAN.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I believe that was my point.

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.
Click to expand...

My point is that they do not currently manage health care, nor is anyone suggesting that they should. Hence it was a ridiculous point on your part.

We are ranked 37th because of the COSTS and because of their arbitrary 'fairness' factors. When you look at responsiveness of the system, we are consistently ranked first.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Preferably one would do both but is that politically tenable? You see the hell being raised right now over financing reform. What the hell do you think would happen if the brought up the issues of cost control?

No, they will address the financing aspect of this first then they will address cost control. Keep in mind on financing who is going to manage that financing? Will it be a purely public one payer system? Will it be a purely market system of private insurance companies? Whom will pay who and how? This all needs to be determined before the issue of cost can be addressed because it directly affects cost. What good would it do to implement cost controls for a market based system of private insurance companies only to switch over to a public one payer system?

You can really go round and round circles on this because they are both intimately interelated.
Click to expand...

The reason hell is being raised is that you DO NOT try to finance before you know WHAT you NEED to finance. If you have the ability to cut COSTS ... then you DO THAT FIRST. You most certainly do not 'address financing' in a manner that will INCREASE costs further when COSTS is the number one problem to begin with.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
thats simple enough. housing bubble. started by people buying homes they couldn't afford. they didn't look at controlling their costs first, then financing what they could afford. No, they went headfirst getting 400k funding, then looked at controlling their costs and failed.



it's already been noted several times that financing health care isn't the problem, but affordability. the only way to control affordability is??????

tada, controlling costs.
Click to expand...
And how do you do that in health care when you don't know who's going to be paying the bill? That part of what is driving the cost of health care up. Your scenario is apples to oranges becuase most of that cost for health care is hidden from consumers. When you finance a house worth $400,000 you know WHY that house cost $400,000 and WHERE the money has to come from before you can pay for that house. That's not true in health care where the true cost for health care access and delivery is hidden from the consumer. This is whay the financing side of health care is being addressed first. Again, since they are interelated they should be addressed at the same time but how can you do that when you don't even know who is going to be paying the bill?? It's not like in your above scenario where you owe the money so you pay the bill. Apples to oranges.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And how do you do that in health care when you don't know who's going to be paying the bill?
Click to expand...
we already know who's paying the bill, either now or in any government set up health care. It will be you, me, topper, and all of Southern mans bubbas in the tobacco fields.

Mott the Hoople said:
Your scenario is apples to oranges becuase most of that cost for health care is hidden from consumers.
Click to expand...
either in my premiums, co pays, or benefits/billing statements, i see all the costs in the box called 'amount due'. nothing is hidden from me.
 
just this week with the change to the mammograms should be enough to give an idea to the idiots for national healthcare of exactly what will happen. No coverage if its not usa approved standard preventative.... scary part is they reserve the right to change it. So they argue.. why cause unneeded anxiety in women between 40-50 for mammograms when only a few percent will get cancer. Or why check mens prostates after 75 since they are likley going to die within 10years anyways.. Bullshit.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...
The only crisis is the economy and jobs, the only likely future crisis is debt. Healthcare has been in a steady decline for decades correlating with government constantly increasing its role in healthcare. They are using a crisis to pass something that has nothing to do with the crisis (even if you did agree it should be passed).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...
And, IMO, must come first in order to gain the support of anybody with a frontal lobe. It's preposterous to say there's 200 Billion in savings in Medicare right now in fraud, then do nothing about it.
 
This falls into the category of those op-eds that leave me wondering "well, author, what do you propose?" Presumably the Dean of Harvard Medical School has a few thoughts about controlling costs. I'd love to hear them.
 
NigelTufnel said:
This falls into the category of those op-eds that leave me wondering "well, author, what do you propose?" Presumably the Dean of Harvard Medical School has a few thoughts about controlling costs. I'd love to hear them.
Click to expand...

Your post yet again leaves me wondering 'could he really post more moronic crap'... and the answer inevitably is 'yes, HE CAN!'
 
NigelTufnel said:
This falls into the category of those op-eds that leave me wondering "well, author, what do you propose?" Presumably the Dean of Harvard Medical School has a few thoughts about controlling costs. I'd love to hear them.
Click to expand...

is this the equivalent of you saying 'well if you think our idea is shit, what do you have?'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top