APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"

[Good Luck]

The problem is not with people being paranoid about going into a government system. They are paranoid from all the lies and misrepresentations thrown out about a government system. That’s where the problem is at.

Assuming you do not have a learning disability do a Google search on universal plans. Then, pick any country that is listed and do a search on their politics/political system and see if there is ONE politician campaigning on dismantling their universal plan. Then move on to another country and do the same thing.

Then come back here and post a logical, sensible, adult post telling us what you found. It would be most refreshing.



I’ve addressed this before. The waiting list for certain treatments/procedures are localized. I told you about the man who lived in a small community and they didn’t have the necessary medical equipment to treat his cancer but he refused to travel 40 miles for treatments unless the government paid for his gas. There are other similar examples.

Do you think every small community is going to have state-of-the-art medical equipment and specialized surgeons in a “pay or suffer” system? If sufficient “customers” are not available, neither government nor private, is going to set up shop.



What about those who don’t have the money for the operation? Let me guess. They should “hobble” around trying to get the money, right? And if they don’t ….oh well, at least the worry will help keep their mind off the pain, right?

So, I put the question to you. Is that the plan you advocate or are you in favour of simply paying for any and all hip operations? Do try and give a concise answer.



And what about those who can’t afford an operation? You never answer that. It’s all about me, me, me. You don’t give a damn about anyone but yourself which is the typical right wing philosophy. You want the luxuries even if others completely do without medical care.

You just don’t get it but that’s why Obama is not talking to the right wing/Repubs. There is no middle ground. You and they just don’t care. It’s as simple as that so there’s nothing to discuss. Even if right wingers had the best care possible they’d still begrudge others because that’s exactly what has been happening all along. That’s precisely why we need a change.

As Taichiliberal so eloquently put it, the "something for nothing", “someone living off my hard work” mentality is so ingrained it would be like trying to explain modern civilization to our ancestors who lived hundreds of years ago. Rather than “other people” being fellow citizens they are considered strangers, lazy, bad, not to be trusted.

It’s time for a change. It’s the 21st century. Come along with us. It’s a great place.

You really are completely brain dead, aren't you?

I have said REPEATEDLY that I favor a system that leaves most of our current system in place, addresses the reasons health care costs have risen at 2-3 times the prevailing inflation rate for over two decades, reduce as many cost-increasing factors as is reasonable, such as tort reform, reduction of unnecessarily redundant regulations in the areas of medical research and equipment use, and then, at the lowered cost levels, go ahead and cover those who cannot afford their own coverage with subsidy programs carefully designed to be a help-up program instead of the usual federal assistance trap.

Not ONCE have I indicated that I think people should be without coverage - and if you were honest instead of the usual lying liberal brain dead twit, you would admit that. I DO, however, disagree with your repeated claims that universal care is the ONLY way possible to provide such coverage. By your own admission, universal plans have many problems. Why the hell should we repeat other people's mistakes? Most people (85+%) do not currently have waiting lists, nor do they have to rid themselves of "luxury" items. Why should we punish them with lowered standard of care?

You try to demean people who would rather get treated using their own money than go through a waiting list. But your "localized" reasoning is pure bullshit. People in rural areas are not on waiting lists because there are no local facilities - they are on waiting lists because the areas WITH facilities are too fucking busy because the universal care system cannot afford to expand those facilities to handle the demand. People with the money to buy their own hip replacement could more easily and cheaply travel to an area without a waiting list if such lists were localized. They did not do so, because your "localized" excuse is a fucking lie. They went to the trouble and expense to SUE the government for the right to pursue private care. And they did so, and continue to spend their own money outside your precious universal care system because the care they get is BETTER. Period. You cannot escape that one, basic truth.

But why is it better? Because these "greedy" doctors and investors can charge a higher price, which, while providing for higher salaries and profits, ALSO buys better equipment, better facilities, MORE equipment if it is needed, attract MORE doctors if they are needed, etc. etc. etc.

I AM in the 21st century. YOU are the one lagging behind, since universal systems were invented in the 20th century - the EARLY 20th century at that. The 21st century is proving those systems to be inefficient and unsustainable. Most systems, including yours in Canada, have been modified to include the bad, evil, corrupt, greed-mongering (and BETTER or people would NOT be demanding the right to seek them in preference to paid universal care) private care systems that you so denigrate. I would be willing to bet within a decade your Canadian system will be further modified to not only allow private care, but actually require it for select upper economic classes, thus joining the hybrid systems many other countries are slowly but surely implementing.

May I suggest YOU come into the 21st century, where NEW ideas, rather than old, tired, proven faulty ones, should be used to both provide care for all through the combined forces of lowering costs, subsidy and assistance, AND provide the higher "luxury" quality care that the "greedy" open market provides to the majority.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originially posted by Good Luck

......I have said REPEATEDLY that I favor a system that leaves most of our current system in place, addresses the reasons health care costs have risen at 2-3 times the prevailing inflation rate for over two decades, reduce as many cost-increasing factors as is reasonable, such as tort reform, reduction of unnecessarily redundant regulations in the areas of medical research and equipment use, and then, at the lowered cost levels, go ahead and cover those who cannot afford their own coverage with subsidy programs carefully designed to be a help-up program instead of the usual federal assistance trap.

An just how do you suppose this happens WITHOUT gov't oversight? Are you suggesting that the very corporations that lobby gov't to insure the system that is will willingly govern themselves to a less profit mode? If you have federal lobby that prevents victims from suing pharmaceutical companies for faulty products, will your "tort" reform address this? And your proposed "step up" subsidy program. Who is going to fund this...the current healthcare corporations? And please explain how putting poor people even more in debt to a corporation for healthcare is a "step up"? Are they going to offer them a job to work off the debt? Or better job placement services?

You're not making sense, GL...you're throwing any and everything out there because of your hatred and distrust of the federal gov't. Problem is, the private industry has already demonstrated it's profit first....and has put us in the situation we're in today.

 

[Kamala Trump]

An just how do you suppose this happens WITHOUT gov't oversight? Are you suggesting that the very corporations that lobby gov't to insure the system that is will willingly govern themselves to a less profit mode? If you have federal lobby that prevents victims from suing pharmaceutical companies for faulty products, will your "tort" reform address this? And your proposed "step up" subsidy program. Who is going to fund this...the current healthcare corporations? And please explain how putting poor people even more in debt to a corporation for healthcare is a "step up"? Are they going to offer them a job to work off the debt? Or better job placement services?

You're not making sense, GL...you're throwing any and everything out there because of your hatred and distrust of the federal gov't. Problem is, the private industry has already demonstrated it's profit first....and has put us in the situation we're in today.

And with the government it's political agenda first. And progressives like population control. Controlling healthcare allows them to let people die, and make it illegal to get unapproved procedures.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
An just how do you suppose this happens WITHOUT gov't oversight? Are you suggesting that the very corporations that lobby gov't to insure the system that is will willingly govern themselves to a less profit mode? If you have federal lobby that prevents victims from suing pharmaceutical companies for faulty products, will your "tort" reform address this? And your proposed "step up" subsidy program. Who is going to fund this...the current healthcare corporations? And please explain how putting poor people even more in debt to a corporation for healthcare is a "step up"? Are they going to offer them a job to work off the debt? Or better job placement services?

You're not making sense, GL...you're throwing any and everything out there because of your hatred and distrust of the federal gov't. Problem is, the private industry has already demonstrated it's profit first....and has put us in the situation we're in today.

And with the government it's political agenda first. And progressives like population control. Controlling healthcare allows them to let people die, and make it illegal to get unapproved procedures.

You're not making sense......we've already have seen in the last year testimony from former Health insurance execs and doctors that detail how companies LET people die because they didn't want to foot the coverage DESPITE the applicants long history of meeting their payments. Other companies refuse to cover people's treatment which down the line leads to either bankruptcy or deteriorating health for the client.

Essentially, YOU and folk like you are IGNORING the current reality while falsely projecting the scenario onto a proposed system THAT HASN'T EVEN BEEN GIVEN A FINAL DRAFT OR APPROVAL.

 

[Good Luck]

There is a marked difference between reasonable government regulation and government control. No one objects to the former - though we do argue where the line is drawn at "reasonable".

You keep harping about profit motive screwing the health care industry, yet you cannot show how the health care industry shows any higher profit margin or return on investment than any other industry. So that particular, tired liberal lie can go away now. It is used too much, and is too easily proven false.

Something is driving health care costs at rates far in excess of inflation. And it's not excess profit, despite your liberal wish to blame greed and profits. The problem lies with excess expenses. A wise society would be working to discover what factors are causing health care expenses to rise so precipitously, and finding means to control those factors, instead of taking the usual brain dead liberal road of blaming all our problems on anything to do with capitalism.

Tort reform is a needed measure, which means government coming in with laws that regulate laws suits. Not even the most die hard conservative denies the need for some government regulation here and there throughout society.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has estimated medical liability costs add $60 billion to $108 billion to the costs of providing health care each year. Much of that is due to the ridiculous level awards being handed out these days. These costs are passed onto the patients, which is then paid either by insurance companies which pass on those costs to their clients in increased premiums, or the patient directly if their coverage is lacking. (Or the rest of society for those who cannot pay at all).

While people deserve just compensation when a doctor screws up, turning them into multi-millionaires at the cost of driving health care expenses through the roof is not justice - it is excess. Especially considering it is the lawyers and not their clients who make out the most with out of control medical lawsuits. The client gets one settlement. The ambulance chasers can have several per year, year after year. I would recommend a cap on lawyer fees in liability litigation as well as reasonable caps on non-economic damages. With a pre-determined maximum, the lawyers will not be motivated to "go for the kill" when a patient's big toenail is trimmed at the wrong angle.

 

[apple0154]

I have said REPEATEDLY that I favor a system that leaves most of our current system in place, addresses the reasons health care costs have risen at 2-3 times the prevailing inflation rate for over two decades, reduce as many cost-increasing factors as is reasonable, such as tort reform, reduction of unnecessarily redundant regulations in the areas of medical research and equipment use, and then, at the lowered cost levels, go ahead and cover those who cannot afford their own coverage with subsidy programs carefully designed to be a help-up program instead of the usual federal assistance trap.

I’m not sure how a universal medical plan could possibly be associated with a “federal assistance trap”. In fact, the idea of universal coverage means there are no qualifications or restrictions or hoops to jump through or limitations on ones acceptance. It removes the idea of “trap”. Anything less can become a trap and like some programs (welfare, for example) the whole idea is to set “traps” in order to disqualify people.

As for reducing costs let’s remember there wasn’t any universal plan when costs were lower. Why? Because cost has nothing to do with implementing a universal plan which is proven by the lower medical costs in countries with a universal plan. Whether one wants to quote statistics regarding the cost vis-à-vis the US using per capita or GDP or anything else there is no way to twist statistics to show a universal plan costs more. The point being one can argue how much cheaper a universal plan is but no one can argue it’s more expensive regardless of how they wish to spin the figures which means debating ways to cut costs before implementing a universal plan is merely a delaying tactic. The best that could ever be hoped for is it would put us back to where we were with lower costs and people still uninsured.

Not ONCE have I indicated that I think people should be without coverage - and if you were honest instead of the usual lying liberal brain dead twit, you would admit that. I DO, however, disagree with your repeated claims that universal care is the ONLY way possible to provide such coverage. By your own admission, universal plans have many problems. Why the hell should we repeat other people's mistakes? Most people (85+%) do not currently have waiting lists, nor do they have to rid themselves of "luxury" items. Why should we punish them with lowered standard of care?

You keep saying there is a better way. WHAT WAY? Show me something besides talking in generalities. All I hear is, “We’ll help those who can’t afford medical care.” Really? Who determines who requires help? Where is that help going to come from? If people are going to spend their own money on their own health care (strictly private service) the only way to help those less fortunate is to raise taxes. There is no other way if everyone is responsible for their own health care.

As I explained before people rant about some guy collecting a $500 welfare check. What do you think the response would be when someone finds out their neighbour collected 20 or 30 thousand for medical expenses? We’d have an emergency hospital admittance due to a right winger’s brain haemorrhage!

You try to demean people who would rather get treated using their own money than go through a waiting list. But your "localized" reasoning is pure bullshit. People in rural areas are not on waiting lists because there are no local facilities - they are on waiting lists because the areas WITH facilities are too fucking busy because the universal care system cannot afford to expand those facilities to handle the demand. People with the money to buy their own hip replacement could more easily and cheaply travel to an area without a waiting list if such lists were localized. They did not do so, because your "localized" excuse is a fucking lie. They went to the trouble and expense to SUE the government for the right to pursue private care. And they did so, and continue to spend their own money outside your precious universal care system because the care they get is BETTER. Period. You cannot escape that one, basic truth.

As I explained before the people who choose to pay for their own medical care will not pay for the medical care of others. That’s the problem. That’s why universal care is necessary.

Let’s not forget Canadians spend half of what the US spends on medical care. Our economies are not THAT dissimilar when comparing housing or cars or food costs so any waiting time can be addressed by raising the budget for medical. But then there’s that old “don’t raise taxes” chant.

If more than a handful of people wanted faster service AND were willing to pay the corresponding tax it would be done immediately. Of course, those who can afford to pay for premium services want to pay for themselves and not put that money into the general fund. So, their MO is to complain about inadequate service while ranting about any tax increase knowing the only way to solve the problem is to raise taxes. The point is they don’t want the problem solved. They can afford to pay for themselves and that’s all they care about.

I AM in the 21st century. YOU are the one lagging behind, since universal systems were invented in the 20th century - the EARLY 20th century at that. The 21st century is proving those systems to be inefficient and unsustainable. Most systems, including yours in Canada, have been modified to include the bad, evil, corrupt, greed-mongering (and BETTER or people would NOT be demanding the right to seek them in preference to paid universal care) private care systems that you so denigrate. I would be willing to bet within a decade your Canadian system will be further modified to not only allow private care, but actually require it for select upper economic classes, thus joining the hybrid systems many other countries are slowly but surely implementing.

I have no problem with that as long as the understanding is everyone is entitled to medical care. If the well-to-do wish the stay at a hotel spa/hospital I have no problem with that either as long as they pay taxes to ensure everyone is covered. If/when those “special” folks start whining about medical taxes and complaining about helping others that’s the time the government has to step in and say, “STFU and STFD.”

May I suggest YOU come into the 21st century, where NEW ideas, rather than old, tired, proven faulty ones, should be used to both provide care for all through the combined forces of lowering costs, subsidy and assistance, AND provide the higher "luxury" quality care that the "greedy" open market provides to the majority.

Again, no problem as long as everyone is covered while people think up new ideas because they’ve already had half a century to think up ideas and to be blunt about it I don’t think anyone has been doing a lot of thinking. If a universal plan or a mixed plan or an absolutely atrocious plan finally gets the people thinking and suggesting, great!

 

[Good Luck]

As for reducing costs let’s remember there wasn’t any universal plan when costs were lower.

And there is the crux of my argument. There were no universal plans when medical care costs were lower. But contrary to your convoluted hypothesis, the reason is because THEY WEREN'T NEEDED. When medical costs were in line with the rest of the economy, it was possible to cover the needy without crippling the economy.

And that is also the aim of my proposal: address costs to make covering the needy affordable. There are factors which are responsible for the current level of medical costs. One item is the insupportable awards commonly given in malpractice suits. The resulting malpractice premiums are alone responsible for an added $100-$200 to the average appendectomy bill. Control that factor, and costs come down. Find other factors and control them (and, no, profits are NOT one of them, or you would be able to easily prove profit margins in health care are larger than other industries.)

The "get it done now by any means" is not a good answer, because then we'll be spending all our time trying to fix the problems of a bad system (like everyone else is) instead of focusing on fixing the REAL problem, which is runaway costs.

 

[Good Luck]

Whether one wants to quote statistics regarding the cost vis-à-vis the US using per capita or GDP or anything else there is no way to twist statistics to show a universal plan costs more. The point being one can argue how much cheaper a universal plan is but no one can argue it’s more expensive regardless of how they wish to spin the figures...

But you do not argue costs, do you? You argue EXPENDITURES. When expenditures are determined by need, they are going to look different than expenditures that are determined by a pre-planned budget. When prices are set by government mandate, it is hardly a valid comparison to prices set by open market. Frankly, in is you spinning figures because you are comparing expenditures which are set by law to expenditures which are set by the people willing to pay for a different level of services. If I like my private room with a nice simulated-suede lazyboy chair for my visitors - and have the means to pay for it either directly or through a premuim health care policy - it is not valid to compare those expenses to a universal-care patient in a double or triple room with a cheap plastic chair to be shared among all visitors and from that draw the conclusion that it is the universal plan that makes the difference in expenditures. They are significantly different levels of care whether you want to call the private room with nice chair unneeded luxury or not. The fact that one costs more than the other is to be expected, and it does not matter if the price is being paid by individuals under a free market plan, or whether society is picking up the tab. That is why the fact that the U.S. has ALWAYS paid about twice as much per capita shows your repeated ad nauseum claims on the relative expenses between open market and universal care to be invalid.

 

[Good Luck]

As I explained before the people who choose to pay for their own medical care will not pay for the medical care of others. That’s the problem. That’s why universal care is necessary.

And yet another blanket claim which is not supported by reality. Right there in your home country, people are paying taxes to support your universal care system, while DEMANDING the right to seeek and pay for their own care in the private care system.

In short, people ARE willing to do what you deny. They may bitch about it. They will definitely bitch about it. Bet they're bitching about the taxes they pay in Canada. But pay they do, and STILL sue your government for the right to access private health care.

So much for THAT hypothesis.

 

[Good Luck]

Again, no problem as long as everyone is covered while people think up new ideas because they’ve already had half a century to think up ideas and to be blunt about it I don’t think anyone has been doing a lot of thinking.

I will, and will not dispute that. But it is another reason I do not count on government a great deal. On the one hand we have the liberal primadonnas still trying to pass a system that was designed a century ago under significantly different circumstances; and to counter that we have the conservative primadonnas spending all their "thinking" efforts dreaming up clever ways to defeat the socialist primadonnas. And while there IS some original thinking and ideas being floated around (that is why I do not fully agree with you on the thinking analysis), both primary sides are so focused on their arguments they both dismiss anything new without conscious thought.

And this phenomenon is not limited to the health care issue.

If a universal plan or a mixed plan or an absolutely atrocious plan finally gets the people thinking and suggesting, great!

Not necessarily. An atrocious plan would (WILL if they pass that piece of shit they have on the table) waste enough resources in the process of being "tweaked" into a workable plan we'd end up trying to dig ourselves out of an even deeper hole. You do NOT get yourself out of a well by digging it deeper, no matter what that does to motivate the others down there with you. And a plan based on century old thinking will take up so much effort tweaking it, little room will be left for original thought - especially since government HATES to get rid of something they control once it is in place. And a truly original idea would require the old be tossed, not just tweaked.

 

[apple0154]

"As for reducing costs let’s remember there wasn’t any universal plan when costs were lower."
And there is the crux of my argument. There were no universal plans when medical care costs were lower. But contrary to your convoluted hypothesis, the reason is because THEY WEREN'T NEEDED. When medical costs were in line with the rest of the economy, it was possible to cover the needy without crippling the economy.

They weren't needed? Are you for real? Why was Medicare needed in the mid-1960s? Or were medical costs too high then? How far do you want to go back? To when barbers pulled teeth? I guess a dental plan wasn't a necessity then, either.

And that is also the aim of my proposal: address costs to make covering the needy affordable. There are factors which are responsible for the current level of medical costs. One item is the insupportable awards commonly given in malpractice suits. The resulting malpractice premiums are alone responsible for an added $100-$200 to the average appendectomy bill. Control that factors, and costs come down. Find other factors and control them (and, no, profits are NOT one of them, or you would be able to easily prove profit margins in health care are larger than other industries.)

Total Hospital Charges for an appendectomy: $22,718.70
Total Paid: $12,078.38 with insurance.
http://www.wellsphere.com/healthcar...cle/how-much-does-an-appendectomy-cost/639454

The breakdown is at the link. If someone has 12 grand the least of their problems is finding an additional $100 or $200. Your post shows the absurdity of people saying malpractice suits are a major problem.

The "get it done now by any means" is not a good answer, because then you're spending all your time trying to fix the problems in the bad system instead of focussing on fixing the REAL problem, which is runaway costs.

It is the only answer. Otherwise, it will be discussed and forgotten like it has been for 50 years. This nonsense about no one knows what's causing the rising prices is exactly that, nonsense. Everyone gets a bill. Look at the bill. Determine what has increased and deal with it.

If it's the actual hospital building costs, find out why. If it's medical equipment, find out why. It's absurd to say no one knows. Someone writes those figures on a piece of paper. Where do they get the figures?

If they can analyze Enron's books do the same with hospitals. Follow the money.

 

[apple0154]

And yet another blanket claim which is not supported by reality. Right there in your home country, people are paying taxes to support your universal care system, while DEMANDING the right to seeek and pay for their own care in the private care system.

In short, people ARE willing to do what you deny. They may bitch about it. They will definitely bitch about it. Bet they're bitching about the taxes they pay in Canada. But pay they do, and STILL sue your government for the right to access private health care.

So much for THAT hypothesis.

It's only starting. That's the reason private care was originally stopped. We'll see how it unfolds.

 

[Good Luck]

You keep saying there is a better way. WHAT WAY? Show me something besides talking in generalities. All I hear is, “We’ll help those who can’t afford medical care.” Really? Who determines who requires help? Where is that help going to come from? If people are going to spend their own money on their own health care (strictly private service) the only way to help those less fortunate is to raise taxes. There is no other way if everyone is responsible for their own health care.

First and foremost, discover and find ways to manage the factors driving health care costs upward. You keep saying that is not a problem with universal plans, but the FACT is through-the-roof costs ARE causing universal plans trouble as well as private coverage plans. As the prices of medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc continue to rise unabated, the governments providing universal care are being forced to spend more of their health care budget covering those additional costs, which then limits the assets available for hiring more doctors and nurses, paying the operating costs of facilities, etc. Ditto hospitals, clinics and doctors offices providing private health care, except they at least have the freedom to raise their prices so they can continue to expand care to an ever expanding demand. It is a problem that simple government subsidy does NOT address - it just makes it worse because it becomes a hidden problem that people don' want to address.

So, hit the cost factors. Since I do not know (nor does anyone else because everyone refuses to look at the problem) what all those factors are, I cannot suggest how to manage them. I can suggest two areas. First is tort reform, which I have mentioned before. Limit liability costs, it will bring prices down.

Also, condense the government regulations overwatching the medical research and medical manufacturing arenas. Find the ones which actually protect the public from unscrupulous practices and keep them. Find the ones that merely cause more procedures, more paperwork, and simply keep more government functionaries employed, and get rid of them.

Bringing prices down will help from three directions: it will allow more people to afford health care in the current system, thus decreasing the number of people who will still need assistance. Second, it will make covering those still in need more affordable, too. Third, it will diminish the cases of people not paying, costs which are then passed on to everyone else in the form of higher prices.

As far as covering those still in need, yes, do it with taxes. People will bitch, but that aspect has already been covered. OTOH, get some of the other wasteful spending under control, significantly lower the cost of covering the needy by managing the factors driving health care costs, and maybe the tax increases - if any - will not be so profound as to cause too strong a reaction.

 

[Good Luck]

Total Hospital Charges for an appendectomy: $22,718.70
Total Paid: $12,078.38 with insurance.
http://www.wellsphere.com/healthcare...my-cost/639454

Horse shit.

My grand nephew just had an appendectomy 6 months ago. (That's why appendectomy came to mind as an example care charge.)

The total bills came in under $4000.

 

[Good Luck]

Additional ideas:

Build a network of community clinics. Almost every town and city larger than 50K or so has at least one community and/or county clinic of some kind, most of them operating off of a combination of local taxes, private donations, and sliding scale fees. Add federal funding to build them up so they can expand their services. That would have the benefit of not only providing for people, but those people in need will not be so dependent on emergency room services for day-to-day care. That in turn will ease the burden on hospitals, including the need to pass on unpaid bills. Taking advantage of current infrastructure always goes a long way in diminishing the costs of expanding federal assistance. Health care is no exception.

 

[apple0154]

First and foremost, discover and find ways to manage the factors driving health care costs upward. You keep saying that is not a problem with universal plans, but the FACT is through-the-roof costs ARE causing universal plans trouble as well as private coverage plans. As the prices of medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc continue to rise unabated, the governments providing universal care are being forced to spend more of their health care budget covering those additional costs, which then limits the assets available for hiring more doctors and nurses, paying the operating costs of facilities, etc. Ditto hospitals, clinics and doctors offices providing private health care, except they at least have the freedom to raise their prices so they can continue to expand care to an ever expanding demand. It is a problem that simple government subsidy does NOT address - it just makes it worse because it becomes a hidden problem that people don' want to address.

So, hit the cost factors. Since I do not know (nor does anyone else because everyone refuses to look at the problem) what all those factors are, I cannot suggest how to manage them. I can suggest two areas. First is tort reform, which I have mentioned before. Limit liability costs, it will bring prices down.

Also, condense the government regulations overwatching the medical research and medical manufacturing arenas. Find the ones which actually protect the public from unscrupulous practices and keep them. Find the ones that merely cause more procedures, more paperwork, and simply keep more government functionaries employed, and get rid of them.

Bringing prices down will help from three directions: it will allow more people to afford health care in the current system, thus decreasing the number of people who will still need assistance. Second, it will make covering those still in need more affordable, too. Third, it will diminish the cases of people not paying, costs which are then passed on to everyone else in the form of higher prices.

As far as covering those still in need, yes, do it with taxes. People will bitch, but that aspect has already been covered. OTOH, get some of the other wasteful spending under control, significantly lower the cost of covering the needy by managing the factors driving health care costs, and maybe the tax increases - if any - will not be so profound as to cause too strong a reaction.

The government can start by negotiating drug prices. That is what other countries do. If a drug company wants their drug to be covered by a government plan they negotiate. If they don't negotiate their drug will not be included. They will lose millions of sales as people will choose a drug that's covered.

While there are a few "new" drugs many are simply an improvement on an old one. An example is aspirin. Then they came out with buffered aspirin to prevent stomach problems. The solution is to take the aspirin with food rather than on an empty stomach and if it means that drug is covered that's the drug most people will choose.

If the vast majority of medical facilities are government owned and a company develops a new medical appliance the developing company will not be able to charge "what the market will bear" but negotiate with the government regarding actual costs and benefits because the government will be the major buyer.

The idea is to get unnecessary profit out of the health care system. Rather that having a medical appliance for sale and watching hospitals compete for it price-wise there will be only one major buyer. The developing company can make a profit but do we need medical supply companies springing up with the accompanying owners/managers of them making a profit, as well?

That's one way costs can be cut. Under a government system the costs can be analyzed and not simply passed on to the consumer. As long as it remains private and the customer pays what incentive is there to analyze costs?

 

[apple0154]

Horse shit.

My grand nephew just had an appendectomy 6 months ago. (That's why appendectomy came to mind as an example care charge.)

The total bills came in under $4000.

Here's another page. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_an_appendectomy_cost

And another. http://www.surgerycosts.net/price.php?medical=appendectomy

And another. Ms. Nix stumbled onto a troubling fact of health-care economics: Most major U.S. hospitals are required to set official "charges" for their services, but then agree to discount or even ignore those charges when getting paid by big institutions such as insurance companies or the government. As a result, almost no one but uninsured individuals ever faces the official charges. In some ways, hospital charges are like automobile "list prices" or hotel "rack rates" -- posted prices that everybody knows nobody pays. But in the case of hospitals, the pricing disparity isn't publicly known and falls most heavily on the vulnerable. America's 41 million people without health insurance tend to be young, working-class and unaware that they are being billed more than everyone else for the same services.
http://www.oralchelation.com/calcium/DegenerativeKneeJoint/p28.htm

That's the kind of nonsense that has to be stopped. Completely stopped. Never-allowed-to-happen-again type of stopped.

 

[Good Luck]

This nonsense about no one knows what's causing the rising prices is exactly that, nonsense. Everyone gets a bill. Look at the bill. Determine what has increased and deal with it.

If it's the actual hospital building costs, find out why. If it's medical equipment, find out why. It's absurd to say no one knows. Someone writes those figures on a piece of paper. Where do they get the figures?

If they can analyze Enron's books do the same with hospitals. Follow the money.

Put it this way: no one has "gone over the books" in any comprehensive study looking for factors that increase costs. Yes, they can look at the spreadsheets and see that a new MRI machine cost so-many-million dollars. But WHY does it cost that much? Go to the manufacturer - look at their books. See where the costs come from. Is there a cost in there that can be addressed?

Look at the development costs of new drugs. Why does it cost several million dollars just for phase I clinical trials? Frankly, it should not, and most of those costs involve meeting a variety of government regulations causing i's to be dotted two or three times, and t's to be crossed five or six times. One dot per i and one cross per t should be enough, even if a government bean counter needs to find a different job.

So, no, nobody knows WHY health cares costs have risen so precipitously. They know WHAT costs are, but not WHY. And the information needed certainly has not been gathered together to be analyzed in the way needed to find manageable factors. (with the exception of liability costs.)

 

[Good Luck]

The government can start by negotiating drug prices. That is what other countries do. If a drug company wants their drug to be covered by a government plan they negotiate. If they don't negotiate their drug will not be included. They will lose millions of sales as people will choose a drug that's covered.

While there are a few "new" drugs many are simply an improvement on an old one. An example is aspirin. Then they came out with buffered aspirin to prevent stomach problems. The solution is to take the aspirin with food rather than on an empty stomach and if it means that drug is covered that's the drug most people will choose.

If the vast majority of medical facilities are government owned and a company develops a new medical appliance the developing company will not be able to charge "what the market will bear" but negotiate with the government regarding actual costs and benefits because the government will be the major buyer.

The idea is to get unnecessary profit out of the health care system. Rather that having a medical appliance for sale and watching hospitals compete for it price-wise there will be only one major buyer. The developing company can make a profit but do we need medical supply companies springing up with the accompanying owners/managers of them making a profit, as well?

That's one way costs can be cut. Under a government system the costs can be analyzed and not simply passed on to the consumer. As long as it remains private and the customer pays what incentive is there to analyze costs?

When you can prove that medical companies, be they drug companies, equipment companies, or supply companies, have larger profit margins or ORIs than the typical for-profit industry, THEN you can go on about "unnecessary" profits. Until then, it's just another brain dead liberal socialist anti-capitalism talking point.

Clue, dipstick: a new private hospital does not just drool on their balance sheets while paying for the equipment for a new operating theater. They, too, dicker for best price.

Other countries get away with setting prices they'll pay because, until very recently, they were the only customer. But even as sole customer, they have been faced with out-of-control rising costs in the health care field.

That is why understanding the factors causing health care costs to spiral upward, and finding ways to manage those factors, would benefit everyone, not just the U.S.

 

[apple0154]

Put it this way: no one has "gone over the books" in any comprehensive study looking for factors that increase costs. Yes, they can look at the spreadsheets and see that a new MRI machine cost so-many-million dollars. But WHY does it cost that much? Go to the manufacturer - look at their books. See where the costs come from. Is there a cost in there that can be addressed?

Look at the development costs of new drugs. Why does it cost several million dollars just for phase I clinical trials? Frankly, it should not, and most of those costs involve meeting a variety of government regulations causing i's to be dotted two or three times, and t's to be crossed five or six times. One dot per i and one cross per t should be enough, even if a government bean counter needs to find a different job.

So, no, nobody knows WHY health cares costs have risen so precipitously. They know WHAT costs are, but not WHY. And the information needed certainly has not been gathered together to be analyzed in the way needed to find manageable factors. (with the exception of liability costs.)

We'll never know if the show is run by private parties. Why would a company divulge such info as long as people are paying?

I remember an oil company executive being asked why high octane gas was 8 cents a liter more than regular gas when it cost only 3 cents a liter more to produce and the executive replied, "What does the cost to produce something have to do with the price it's sold for?"