APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"

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.

You are dumb or just intentionally missing the point? It's all the middle-men/companies that each take a profit. A private clinic needing a heating/AC system is going to get bids from local contractors. If one or two contractors were involved in supplying all the clinics and hospitals the cost would be considerably lower.

Figure in everything from examining tables to light bulbs to syringes. Every owner of every light bulb store and every owner of every HVAC shop and every owner of every syringe supplying shop is going to earn more than one owner and a few salesmen from one company.

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.

Then the government can check out why. Surely they are in a better bargaining position than one private hospital. As I explained before if governments refused to buy drugs or equipment from a company who would that company sell their products to if the government ran the medical plan? The answer is very few people.

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.

No one is going to find out because no one is allowed to go into a private company and go over their books. That's the answer.

This is not a mystery. How can anyone say they don't know how to address the problem? The solution is simple. Whether a company raises the price of drugs or diapers just ask, "What has caused the price increase?"

If I'm not mistaken Wal-Mart has a somewhat similar approach. Wal-Mart buys a product from a company. When the company raises the price Wal-Mart checks out why the need for an increase. If the company is not forthcoming Wal-Mart simply drops them.

There has to be a logical reason for increased costs. It's ludicrous to say one can not find out. It's bullsh!t. If the company won't explain, change companies.
 
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.


GL, I do wish you stop being an apologist for the profit motive driven Health care insurance industry as it stands.

Let me spell it out for you....it's not about comparing profit margins of one industry to another...it's about an industry that is making a profit by NOT living up to dictates for its very existence....to provide adequate health insurance to it's paying customers. Do a little research into the profit margins of Aetna or Cigna, then compare it to your numbers on liabilities.

Bottom line:you want expeditures to go down, then you put more people into a system that does not deny them care when they need it...you have the system change to PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE instead of reaction. That means that you DON'T have doctors milk the insurance company with a slew of unnecessary tests...the excuse being that they don't want to be sued. That means that you GET RID OF BAD DOCTORS instead of protecting them with a slew of lawyers and shuffling them from hospital to hospital, state to state. That way you REDUCE costs.

Bottom line: The insurance companies are NOT the victims here...the victims are the people paying into the system who are denied, who go bankrupt, who die when the medical system to save them is there. Again, to scream bloody murder that a gov't OPTION is going to enslave and/or kill people is just not rational or factual.
 
Last edited:
You shoot yourself in the foot so many times it is really getting pathertic. First, you claim no one is going to open their books for examination so we'll never know the reasons for health costs increasing. Then you turn around and state, quite correctly, that Walmart does exactly that, successfully.

And you also seem to forget (or are you just ignoring it, hoping noone notices?) that the books of public companies ARE subject to review.

But for all your self-conflicting diatribe, you keep bypassing one important fact: no one has made a comprehensive effort to gather together a large enough data set to be able to identify a consistent set of factors that can be pointed to as "these factors are significant in the precipitous way health care costs keep increasing." The data IS available, but no one is doing anything about it because people like you are too busy yelling "UNIVERSAL CARE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!!!" That does not mean it CAN'T be done, it simple has not been done. (yet).

And if people like you have your way, it never will be done.
 
Last edited:
You are dumb or just intentionally missing the point? It's all the middle-men/companies that each take a profit. A private clinic needing a heating/AC system is going to get bids from local contractors. If one or two contractors were involved in supplying all the clinics and hospitals the cost would be considerably lower.

Figure in everything from examining tables to light bulbs to syringes. Every owner of every light bulb store and every owner of every HVAC shop and every owner of every syringe supplying shop is going to earn more than one owner and a few salesmen from one company.
The lies of the full blown socialist.

More competition means lower prices, not higher, dipshit. If there were only one contractor building clinics, they could and would set a higher price than if they had to compete with a rival contractor. And two contractors would have to adjust their pricing if there were another couple contractors in the area. Why the fuck do you think monopolies are a bad idea?

Stores selling light bulbs pay attention to the prices of other stores selling light bulbs and try to match or beat those prices, unless they depend on a service or quality differentiation to justify higher prices, which is another way competition works - do you get 100 bulbs cheap, or buy 50 bulbs at twice the price, but will last five times as long?. Ditto surgical masks, syringes, baby wipes, disposable water glasses, etc. etc. etc.

But despite competition, health care prices ar through the roof. There IS a reason that health care prices are rising far above inflation rates, and that reason is NOT profits; it is NOT capitalism.

In fact, my hypothesis is it is the exact opposite: capitalism is being suppressed, and that is one of the factors in health care costs. Government regulations (many of which ARE needed) end up limiting competition because they make it extremely difficult to get a new drug on the market. Heck, it is hard enough just FINDING something new that can treaat a disease without killing the patient, even without a bunch of government hoops to jump through.

So when a new drug treatment IS finally passed into the market, the inventing company enjoys an effective monopoly on their product until a rival company can come up with another product, different enough to satisfy patent laws, that treats the same illness, and get their drug through the FDA approval process. (Assuming the FDA has not been bribed to scuttle the competitor's product. I still think taking Vioxx off the shelves was a case of corruption within FDA, considering the products still out there with the same dangers.)
 
Last edited:
You shoot yourself in the foot so many times it is really getting pathertic. First, you claim no one is going to open their books for examination so we'll never know the reasons for health costs increasing. Then you turn around and state, quite correctly, that Walmart does exactly that, successfully.

You're being obtuse again. Bad boy. :nono:

The reason companies open their books to Wal-Mart is because, in many cases, their business is wholly dependent on Wal-Mart. The same would happen to medical supply companies and drug companies if the bulk of their business was dependent on one buyer, the government.

But for all your self-conflicting diatribe, you keep bypassing one important fact: no one has made a comprehensive effort to gather together a large enough data set to be able to identify a consistent set of factors that can be pointed to as "these factors are significant in the precipitous way health care costs keep increasing." The data IS available, but no one is doing anything about it because people like you are too busy yelling "UNIVERSAL CARE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!!!" That does not mean it CAN'T be done, it simple has not been done. (yet).

And if people like you have your way, it never will be done.

How does yelling "UNIVERSAL CARE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!!! stop anyone from collecting data? The reason data isn't collected is because the people who should be collecting the data don't care. The private clinic doesn't care if syringes double in price because they'll charge you double the price plus the cost to keep a few thousand in stock. It makes no difference to them how much a syringe costs because you are paying for it. Furthermore, the syringe company has many private clinics as customers. If one doesn’t buy, another will.

So, we end up back where we always were. The patient will never know why syringes cost so much, the private clinic doesn’t care and life goes on.

People have this absurd idea medical services are like any other service people require. Sort of like if one requires a carpenter they’ll shop around and get estimates. Ever see a guy with a broken leg driving around from hospital to hospital getting an estimate? A heart attack or stroke victim asking hospitals to submit tenders?

And don't get me started on this nutty idea of medical insurance. Does anyone know what illness they are going to contract? One buys home insurance having a good idea what to be insured for. Those in a desert environment can safely exclude flood damage while those in a tropical climate probably won’t need coverage for snow/frost damage. Plus, they have a good idea of what damages may result and the cost. How can one possibly determine what medical illnesses, the costs, the possible complications, etc.

It’s just an all around, bizarre set-up.
 
How does yelling "UNIVERSAL CARE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!!! stop anyone from collecting data? The reason data isn't collected is because the people who should be collecting the data don't care. The private clinic doesn't care if syringes double in price because they'll charge you double the price plus the cost to keep a few thousand in stock. It makes no difference to them how much a syringe costs because you are paying for it. Furthermore, the syringe company has many private clinics as customers. If one doesn’t buy, another will.
Because a project to accumulate enough data to determine sources of inflationary pressures would be a huge project, not something a few people can cobble up together between youtube posts. It's also not something a clinic or two can cobble up on their own. Nor Walmart. They all have a piece of the picture, but no one is out gathering those pieces to put the puzzle together. And they DO care because they don't like having to pass on higher prices.

Those who claim to be most interested in finding a solution to health care problems (ie: you and your type) have already made up their minds what the solution is to the problem (which is not a solution - it's a bandaid.). You are not interested in accumulating the data because you don't care either. Your focus is to start universal care because that is the ONLY solution you puny little minds can come up with. You don't give a ripe fart that health care would not even BE an issue if its costs has stayed level with the rest of inflation. You mind is made up, so no new data is needed.

Meanwhile the republicans are so focused on preventing universal care, they don't seem to care either. As long as universal care is blocked, their job is done, as far as they are concerned.

Meanwhile those who are looking for a genuine solution instead of the traditional government patch cannot get enough momentum to get their own studies started because the brain dead lemming pundits of both sides hammer them out of the way in their undying pursuit of their own single minded agendas. neither side is interested in actually trying to look at the problem itself.

So, we end up back where we always were. The patient will never know why syringes cost so much, the private clinic doesn’t care and life goes on.
And you don't care either because you are so convinced universal care is the answer, all you see is making sure the damned things are paid for, regardless of how much they cost.

People have this absurd idea medical services are like any other service people require. Sort of like if one requires a carpenter they’ll shop around and get estimates. Ever see a guy with a broken leg driving around from hospital to hospital getting an estimate? A heart attack or stroke victim asking hospitals to submit tenders?
A smart person does not wait for trouble. They get themselves a regular physician, so when trouble does come up, they have a doctor that knows their history. They also get themselves proper coverage if they can afford it, because then the coverage ddoes the bargaining while they're getting their leg set, their bypass, etc.

Of course, the problem is those who don't have the means to decent coverage. And the reason for that problem is rising care costs is driving coverage out of reach of more and more people. But simply providing them with that coverage is not a long term solution. The problem with rising costs will go on making it more and more difficult to cover anyone, let alone everyone. Countries with universal plans are already feeling the pressures, resulting in decreasing standards of care, increasing waiting lists, etc.

And don't get me started on this nutty idea of medical insurance. Does anyone know what illness they are going to contract? One buys home insurance having a good idea what to be insured for. Those in a desert environment can safely exclude flood damage while those in a tropical climate probably won’t need coverage for snow/frost damage. Plus, they have a good idea of what damages may result and the cost. How can one possibly determine what medical illnesses, the costs, the possible complications, etc.

It’s just an all around, bizarre set-up.
Medical insurance is the exact same principle as any other insurance, but is designed to provide for a much wider range of possible problems. The fact that 85% of Americans get good quality care at affordable (to them) costs proves it works whether you have the cognitive abilities to understand why it works or not. It's quite simple - premiums are set at a rate where the more healthy majority pay for the higher expenses of the less healthy minority, plus a profit. (most people understand this, which is another fact that gives lie to your statement that people won't pay for their health care and other's too - it is already happening.)

Rising costs drive premiums up. Rising health problems (mostly do to lifestyles) drive premiums up. Pretty soon too many can no longer afford it, and then we have problems. Find and fix the rising costs, and premiums will settle down some. Get people into healthier life styles, premium will come down and more people can afford coverage.

But the principle is easy: those with fewer health problems pay for those with more health problems.
 
Last edited:
You don't give a ripe fart that health care would not even BE an issue if its costs has stayed level with the rest of inflation.

That way of thinking is a major part of the problem and I've mentioned this before. Why was medicare implemented in the mid-60s? Inflation?

People have been without medical insurance ever since there was medical insurance. There was always an excuse a national policy couldn't be implemented/wasn't needed. Today, the excuse is inflation.

"Let's get costs under control and everything will be fine." I have news for you. Things won't be fine. They haven't been fine for 50 years!

The time for excuses is over. The time for talk is over. It's all been said and nothing was done. Waiting 50 years for a health plan is not "pushing it through". It's dragging it through with groups of greedy people acting like a lead ball on the end of it.

As for finding why the costs are rising any government can quickly find out. What is the mystery? If syringes are going up in price, ask why. Is glass more expensive? If so, why? Is it the rubber plunger? If so, why?

Maybe it's time we had a war on medical. Of course, we know why prices have gone up. Everyone wants a piece of the action. Any medical "business" is a good investment.

Your comments about drug companies not making outrageous profits depends on what is considered a profit. If they turn around and invest it all in research then it's not "technically" a profit. They are not pocketing the money. It is used to pay expenses.

Then there's the spin-off jobs. Behind every medical store front is some dude hoping to get rich. He certainly isn't there due to altruism.

It's all about consolidating. It's about coming to terms with the idea everyone is entitled to medical coverage. Then everyone is on the same page as far as improvements are concerned.

The way it is now the drug companies want to maintain their same way of operation but say they want everyone to have access to them. The insurance companies want to keep operating the same way but say they want everyone to be covered. The medical equipment companies want to keep maximizing their profits but say they want everyone to have access to the equipment.

Lots of ideas but universal access is never the priority so there will never be an agreement. That's why it's necessary for the government to step in.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Because a project to accumulate enough data to determine sources of inflationary pressures would be a huge project, not something a few people can cobble up together between youtube posts. It's also not something a clinic or two can cobble up on their own. Nor Walmart. They all have a piece of the picture, but no one is out gathering those pieces to put the puzzle together. And they DO care because they don't like having to pass on higher prices.

Those who claim to be most interested in finding a solution to health care problems (ie: you and your type) have already made up their minds what the solution is to the problem (which is not a solution - it's a bandaid.). You are not interested in accumulating the data because you don't care either. Your focus is to start universal care because that is the ONLY solution you puny little minds can come up with. You don't give a ripe fart that health care would not even BE an issue if its costs has stayed level with the rest of inflation. You mind is made up, so no new data is needed.

Meanwhile the republicans are so focused on preventing universal care, they don't seem to care either. As long as universal care is blocked, their job is done, as far as they are concerned.

Meanwhile those who are looking for a genuine solution instead of the traditional government patch cannot get enough momentum to get their own studies started because the brain dead lemming pundits of both sides hammer them out of the way in their undying pursuit of their own single minded agendas. neither side is interested in actually trying to look at the problem itself.


And you don't care either because you are so convinced universal care is the answer, all you see is making sure the damned things are paid for, regardless of how much they cost.


A smart person does not wait for trouble. They get themselves a regular physician, so when trouble does come up, they have a doctor that knows their history. They also get themselves proper coverage if they can afford it, because then the coverage ddoes the bargaining while they're getting their leg set, their bypass, etc.

Of course, the problem is those who don't have the means to decent coverage. And the reason for that problem is rising care costs is driving coverage out of reach of more and more people. But simply providing them with that coverage is not a long term solution. The problem with rising costs will go on making it more and more difficult to cover anyone, let alone everyone. Countries with universal plans are already feeling the pressures, resulting in decreasing standards of care, increasing waiting lists, etc.


Medical insurance is the exact same principle as any other insurance, but is designed to provide for a much wider range of possible problems. The fact that 85% of Americans get good quality care at affordable (to them) costs proves it works whether you have the cognitive abilities to understand why it works or not. It's quite simple - premiums are set at a rate where the more healthy majority pay for the higher expenses of the less healthy minority, plus a profit. (most people understand this, which is another fact that gives lie to your statement that people won't pay for their health care and other's too - it is already happening.)

Rising costs drive premiums up. Rising health problems (mostly do to lifestyles) drive premiums up. Pretty soon too many can no longer afford it, and then we have problems. Find and fix the rising costs, and premiums will settle down some. Get people into healthier life styles, premium will come down and more people can afford coverage.

But the principle is easy: those with fewer health problems pay for those with more health problems.
 
That way of thinking is a major part of the problem and I've mentioned this before. Why was medicare implemented in the mid-60s? Inflation?
No, Medicare was a direct consequence of SS enticing millions into retirement without extending their employers' care plans (if any). That created the problem of an sector of the population with the greatest need of health care without adequate health care coverage. It's another reason socialist plans always end up growing beyond sustainability - the law of unintended consequences invariably adds the to costs of the plan.

But let's not forget that Medicare is a far cry from universal care. You reasoning skills are pathetic. The fact is health care would not be an issue if costs were not rising so sharply these past couple decades. Had health care costs stayed in step with inflation the average health care bill would be less than half it's current price, making it much more affordable, which in turn would make insurance cost half as much. More businesses could and would be offering coverage as a benefit package, and more people without, including the self employed could afford to pay for their own. That would also make medicare/medicaid taxes stretch twice as far. The net result would be 99% of people covered either through private industry or from medicare/medicaid, instead of 85%.

Like I keep saying, the REAL answer to the problem is to address the PROBLEM, which is out of control prices. The answer is not to put a big-government band-aid over the symptoms, because then the symptoms will simply continue to grow worse.

Waiting 50 years for a health plan is not "pushing it through"
Passing any law which is not desired by the people, especially a law that is as trouble-laden as the bill before Congress, is PUSHING it through, no matter HOW long the lying fucks have had to wait. Give the people a bill that actually has a chance of working and they won't need to push it through, the people will demand it.

In fact, the people from all sides of political ideologies ARE demanding something be done to fix the health care problems. But the majority recognize a basic truth that you leftist liberals twits cannot seem to comprehend: if the bill is designed to fuck things up worse, then we ARE better off passing nothing. If you break your ankle, and the only offered treatment is an above-the-knee amputation, you are better off going home and treating it yourself.
 
Your comments about drug companies not making outrageous profits depends on what is considered a profit. If they turn around and invest it all in research then it's not "technically" a profit. They are not pocketing the money. It is used to pay expenses.
You ALMOST recognize a truth here, but still back away from it.

People complain bitterly about paying $20, $30, even $100 per pill for a new drug. How about the need to pay for the R&D costs of the drug being marketed? Do a little research on the average costs of finding and developing a new drug in the lab, then add in the costs of pre-clinical trials, all phases of clinical trials, etc. Take those costs, apply the likely market (ie: how many people tend to get the disease being treated and how many alternate treatments are there?) and then estimate from that data how many pills they'll sell while it's covered by patent. Divide that into the costs of developing the drug. Do these calculations honestly, and you'll see where $100/pill comes from for drugs treating relatively rare conditions.

Don't forget to add in liability insurance premiums to cover the inevitable multi-million dollar law suits that occur from the use of a drug. Even the most successful of treatments has its share of people who have bad reactions.

And while you're at it, toss in the costs of drugs aimed at the same illness that did not pan out. Sometimes a drug can make it a long way, costing a hundred million or more, and then fail phase III clinical trials. Are the drug companies supposed to simply eat those costs?

Profit margins mean the exact same thing fro drug companies as they do any other industry. "depends on what is considered a profit" is just more typical brain dead anti-capitalist nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You reasoning skills are pathetic.

AHAHAHAHA. Now that’s funny! Let’s check out what you classify as reasoning skills.

The fact is health care would not be an issue if costs were not rising so sharply these past couple decades. Had health care costs stayed in step with inflation the average health care bill would be less than half it's current price, making it much more affordable, which in turn would make insurance cost half as much. More businesses could and would be offering coverage as a benefit package, and more people without, including the self employed could afford to pay for their own.

There were always people unable to afford health care insurance. This is not about the last couple of decades. Or strictly about Medicare. Health care has been an issue since WWII. Actually, it was an issue long before that but, hopefully, you get the point which is health care has always been an issue since there was anything worthy to be called health care.

People change jobs. They may be uninsured for a week or a month. What happens to them? And considering our mobile society people frequently change jobs. Also, many jobs are contracts now. Even large companies hire on contract now so they don’t have to go through the hassle of firing someone. While some contracts may include medical it’s not like the old union days when most people were automatically covered and stayed in the same job all their life.

Too many unemployed, too many on Medicare, costs rising too quickly…..the reasons may change but it inevitably comes down to the same thing; Health care has always been an issue and it’s time to put an end to that nonsense, once and for all.

In fact, the people from all sides of political ideologies ARE demanding something be done to fix the health care problems. But the majority recognize a basic truth that you leftist liberals twits cannot seem to comprehend: if the bill is designed to fuck things up worse, then we ARE better off passing nothing.

Yes, all political ideologies are demanding something but it’s the “something” that’s the problem as you so clearly show in your following post # 333.
People complain bitterly about paying $20, $30, even $100 per pill for a new drug. How about the need to pay for the R&D costs of the drug being marketed?……….. Do these calculations honestly, and you'll see where $100/pill comes from for drugs treating relatively rare conditions.

I’m well aware of the costs. What you are not aware of is, as a society, we raise our standard of living together. That means not producing a drug for a rare illness that only a select few can afford while denying the majority medication for common illnesses.

For example, many countries have free or inexpensive tests for STDs. It is to society’s benefit to treat those people even if they can’t afford it. The same applies to certain lung illnesses. Many countries treat dangerous lung diseases to prevent the spread.

This “political ideology” goes beyond medical. We don’t allow people to starve or needlessly suffer. The poor in a wealthy country are better off than the poor in a poor country because wealthy countries try to raise the standards of all.

And before you flip out that does not mean stealing from the rich. It’s the logical, efficient thing to do. Otherwise, when sufficient numbers of people suffer while seeing others having more than plenty……..well, look a the rest of the world. Pick a country that continually suffers unrest and the cause, more often than not, is the great disparity between its citizens.

More accurately, it’s not the disparity. No one suggests because one person has two TVs everyone should have one. The problem is the suffering and that it can be relieved. It is people losing their home and everything they’ve worked a lifetime for due to medical bankruptcy. Or not being able to afford an operation.

Nobody is asking the drug companies to “eat the cost”, as you phrase it. Society “eats the cost”. That is how a just society is supposed to operate.
 
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.

Holy crap, did you read the 2nd link and note the cost differences between the U.S. and other parts of the world? Unbelievable.

$25,000 - Not Happy In SC in Easley, SC Palmetto Baptist Medical Center

$1,700 - in Kampala, Uganda

$27,102 - KH in Minneapolis, Minnesota

$3,360 - Andrew McDonald in Bamber Germany

$60,000 - Sarah in Northwest Florida
 
There were always people unable to afford health care insurance.
Yes, but what you fail to acknowledge, admit to, or otherwise put in your pathitic "reasoning" is the fact that the NUMBERS of people needing help with their medical expenses has been rising rapidly.

Imagine a world in which medical costs stayed even with inflation. Instead of $4,000 for an appendectomy (I still call bullshit on your figures, especially since they were taken from a BLOG. Do you always use BLOGS as references?) it would be closer to $1500. Insurance premiums, instead of being $800-900/mo to cover a family would be closer to $300. That alone puts medical care withing the means of at least 2/3 the people currently without coverage. At the same time, covering the expenses of those who cannot cover themselves would also cost the government about 1/3. We could cut medicare/medicaid taxes by 30% and STILL cover over twice the numbers of people we do now.

Between those two factors, it would NOT be an issue because we'd HAVE IT COVERED with the system currently in place.
 
Yes, but what you fail to acknowledge, admit to, or otherwise put in your pathitic "reasoning" is the fact that the NUMBERS of people needing help with their medical expenses has been rising rapidly.

Imagine a world in which medical costs stayed even with inflation. Instead of $4,000 for an appendectomy (I still call bullshit on your figures, especially since they were taken from a BLOG. Do you always use BLOGS as references?) it would be closer to $1500. Insurance premiums, instead of being $800-900/mo to cover a family would be closer to $300. That alone puts medical care withing the means of at least 2/3 the people currently without coverage. At the same time, covering the expenses of those who cannot cover themselves would also cost the government about 1/3. We could cut medicare/medicaid taxes by 30% and STILL cover over twice the numbers of people we do now.

Between those two factors, it would NOT be an issue because we'd HAVE IT COVERED with the system currently in place.

You have an awesome imagination. Is your name Rowling?

You've offered no info, whatsoever, to back your claim of lower insurance costs. "Imagine a world in which medical costs stayed even with inflation."

Imagine, indeed! You throw out an imaginary number ($1500) and then proceed to build a case around it.

Medical care is going to increase due to two reasons. The first is many people have more discretionary funds for medical procedures, be it removing a mole (Ms. Parker) to having laser surgery because they don't like wearing glasses.

The second reason is as medicine advances there are more illnesses that can be treated. They've started growing replacement body parts such as hearts, bladders, etc. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/11/60minutes/main5968057.shtml

Like any other insurance the premiums are based on what is being insured. When the average house price was $50,000 home insurance was cheaper than it is now. The same applies to medical costs. When it becomes common practice to grow and replace defective organs what do you think will happen to insurance premiums?

Soon drugs will be individually tailored to a person's genetic make-up. Do you think insurance costs will go down?

If one wants to talk about class warfare what do you think will happen when the wealthy can obtain lab-grown body parts and genetically designed drugs while the poor are denied?

Medical advances are set to explode. The disparity between those able to afford decent insurance and those who can't will grow wider and wider.

You are the last person to be chastising others when it comes to "reasoning". It is definitely not your forte.

With the economy in rough shape and medical care advancing at the speed it is we can no more leave it to the "market" to fix than we could our financial affairs.

The time is now for government intervention.
 
You stupid ignorant piece of lying shit. All one has to do is compare the average inflation rate over the last 30 years to the rate of health care cost increases. If inflation for one year is 4.5% and medical costs go up 18%, it does not take "imagination" to determine that for that year health care costs rose 4 times the rate of inflation. The data is available by the decade or by the year. A simple calculator can find the total relative rate, which is actually closer to 4 times inflation than 3.

As such, if medical costs had indeed stayed level with inflation since 1980, current costs would be 1/3-1/4 as high. Adjusting current costs to match what costs would be according to inflation is simple arithmetic. And, if costs were 1/3 to 1/4 their current values, health care would NOT be a political issue because there would be no health care crisis. Therefore, the central cause of the health care problem is what caused costs to rise so far ahead of normal inflationary pressures. The fact that people so many people cannot afford it is a symptom of the problem, not a cause. Address the symptom alone and the cause will defeat you. Address the cause of the problem, and the symptoms are also, automatically addressed.

But that is neither here nor there with respect to the point of this thread. Defending the advantages of universal care does not address the fact that the democrats are using illicit and corrupt methods to get their bill passed. The end does NOT justify the means, and when corrupt means are used, it will end up corrupting the end, no matter how noble its intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So is the road to tyranny.
 
Last edited:
But that is neither here nor there with respect to the point of this thread. Defending the advantages of universal care does not address the fact that the democrats are using illicit and corrupt methods to get their bill passed. The end does NOT justify the means, and when corrupt means are used, it will end up corrupting the end, no matter how noble its intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So is the road to tyranny.

Most of what you write is neither here nor there. As I explained heath care costs are going to rise because there is more health care available. There are more procedures available. There are more drugs available.

If a person was insured for a broken leg 100 years ago there were two options. Bandage it up and hope it heals or amputate. Either way, the time and cost involved was minimal.

Today, there may be bone grafts, rods placed in the leg, microscopic surgery for the blood vessels and on and on it goes. As new procedures come on line, meaning there are more options, the cost of attending to a broken leg will rise. The same is true regarding all illnesses and as our knowledge of medicine increases guess what will happen. What is it about that you do not understand.

Twenty years ago, medically speaking, is ancient history.

As for illicit and corrupt methods being used illicit and corrupt methods have been used for the last 50 years! Today, it's talk about death panels and crap like "The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So is the road to tyranny."

Oh, yes. Countries with universal medical plans are run by tyrannical dictators.

You, Sir, are one Bozo.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

You stupid ignorant piece of lying shit. All one has to do is compare the average inflation rate over the last 30 years to the rate of health care cost increases. If inflation for one year is 4.5% and medical costs go up 18%, it does not take "imagination" to determine that for that year health care costs rose 4 times the rate of inflation. The data is available by the decade or by the year. A simple calculator can find the total relative rate, which is actually closer to 4 times inflation than 3.

As such, if medical costs had indeed stayed level with inflation since 1980, current costs would be 1/3-1/4 as high. Adjusting current costs to match what costs would be according to inflation is simple arithmetic. And, if costs were 1/3 to 1/4 their current values, health care would NOT be a political issue because there would be no health care crisis. Therefore, the central cause of the health care problem is what caused costs to rise so far ahead of normal inflationary pressures. The fact that people so many people cannot afford it is a symptom of the problem, not a cause. Address the symptom alone and the cause will defeat you. Address the cause of the problem, and the symptoms are also, automatically addressed.

But that is neither here nor there with respect to the point of this thread. Defending the advantages of universal care does not address the fact that the democrats are using illicit and corrupt methods to get their bill passed. The end does NOT justify the means, and when corrupt means are used, it will end up corrupting the end, no matter how noble its intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So is the road to tyranny.
 
Back
Top