|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 23, 2013 18:00:14 GMT -6
Then to,further the conversation what do we do with all the people that would be unemployed from the medical field due to a govt take over? Do we put them on the unemployment bank roll, does the federal govt hire the majority to work for them doing the same job or close to it? What pay grade will they be hired on by the fed govt? Will they then get all those great govt benefits that are open about as well? o in the end many of them get a better deal at a higher cost to taxpayers than when they where private?
Will the federal run this national program at a break even or will they try to make a profit from it to spend on other special interest wants? When everyone has a Medical plan how do we then account for dollars and measures if they become ones that go to a doctors for evey little ache and pain because they have a federal funded and mandated medical plan? Or will people then get Pre qualified prior to going to the doctor?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 24, 2013 7:25:42 GMT -6
TC-
HC insurance, is a relatively new concept.
how did we ever survive, without it? and thats not a rhetorical question- how did we pay for HC, before insurance?
and part two of this quiz- WHY do we need insurance now?
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Aug 24, 2013 8:47:54 GMT -6
If insurance is the problem than the fix is simple.
Outlaw insurance and medicare.
Problem solved.
Maybe the reason why healthcare got so expensive was because the government stuck its nose in it. How much did it cost to go to a doctor before medicare was invented.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Aug 24, 2013 13:32:19 GMT -6
"How much did it cost to go to a doctor before medicare was invented." Nothing, urban dwellers didn't go to the Dr. because they couldn't afford it, they just got sick and died. Much like some people without health insurance do these days. Country dwellers were somewhat luckier in that they could sometimes barter with goods (chickens, produce, etc) for services. In 1959: " about two-thirds of retirees had no health insurance at all and even those with insurance frequently had insurance that covered only a small fraction of their costs. And the impression John Barclay conveyed was altogether typical of the way most seniors felt, according to Yale political scientist Ted Marmor. "The biggest fears included not being able to pay for care and risking turning to children or siblings for help, or it meant relying on the charitable attitude of the doctor or hospital" says Marmor, whose book The Politics of Medicare is considered the program's definitive history. "Most profoundly, it was the sense that illness or injury -- bad enough themselves -- could be disastrous for family finances unless you were lucky enough to have retiree coverage from a union or government plan." National outrage over that situation was a major reason why, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson and congressional Democrats were able to enact Medicare. www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Columns/2011/April/042611cohn.aspx========= www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/01/history-medicare-influences-american-health-care.html Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Aug 24, 2013 13:39:42 GMT -6
"When everyone has a Medical plan how do we then account for dollars and measures if they become ones that go to a doctors for evey little ache and pain because they have a federal funded and mandated medical plan?"
Better to go to the Doctor for every little ache and pain than to wait until one has a major life threatenening illness requiring highly expensive treatments and hospitalization. Which costs more in the end?
Msot people hate going to the Doctor so I don't see that as being a "real" problem.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Aug 24, 2013 15:13:01 GMT -6
Nothing, urban dwellers didn't go to the Dr. because they couldn't afford it, they just got sick and died. Much like some people without health insurance do these days. Country dwellers were somewhat luckier in that they could sometimes barter with goods (chickens, produce, etc) for services.
So in other words we good health care because of insurance?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 24, 2013 20:27:50 GMT -6
Exactly Pam you answered Tmans question very well. Look at the avg life expectancy it has risen over the last 100 years by a lot! It has happened because of the advancements in medical research and drug research across the board, you can't have that with out higher cost. hat a doctor goes through now compared to even 50 years ago is far,far different training no doubt! Things that we never had a cure for, things they never diagnosed properly or didn't know exactly what it was is now simple medical care. People ,live longer and see a doctor,far more than years ago. Hence higher cost.
Tman why do you have house and drivers insurance? Because most people can't bear the cost on their own. Simple really. If people really think that health care would remain the same ran by our govt they are delusional . If that truly was the case Obama would have went for 100 percent govt run care and got it, as he had the votes at the time for about anything.
Remember our numbers 300 million plus people in this country..............
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Aug 24, 2013 23:11:46 GMT -6
No, mostly due to the public funds invested in the tools, technology, pharmaceuticals, personnel, and infrastructure.
And not just in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 25, 2013 7:56:36 GMT -6
Lets say no one had health insurence where would the money have come from to be where we are today when it comes to health care period? What do we think health care insurence pays out annually and what their profit is in a percentage basis? Could one state that it is above 15 percent? Or would it end up being more like 5 percent?
Anyone have any real numbs on that? Many state the health care companies are making to much money but was is the real profit margin over cost when talking this kind of cash?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 25, 2013 8:20:22 GMT -6
real numbers?
Insurers have long complained that the law’s more rigorous standards would raise prices, although since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, national health expenditures have decreased and insurers in the individual market have followed the trend, posting fewer double digit increases. Sudden rate hikes were considered the norm before the law went into effect and applicants were regularly denied coverage or priced out of it altogether. Insurance commissioners have also begun reviewing rates more carefully and insurers have had to spend 80 cents out of every premium dollar on health benefits, rather than administrative overhead.
The ACA also includes mechanisms to help minimize initial sticker shock and independent analyses have found that many young adults can enroll in Medicaid, stay on their parents’ policies, or qualify for tax credits in the state-based health insurance exchanges. The CBO analysis of the law has also determined that average premiums for individuals would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher because of the law — an increase that’s far smaller than insurers are projecting.
Insurers, meanwhile, are already seeing impressive profits. UnitedHealth, for instance, “had a particularly strong past year, with net income of $5.1 billion, up by 11% from the previous year” and Aetna is similarly beating revenue expectations. A July 2010 report from PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that the law’s state-based health care exchanges provide private insurers with a lucrative new market in which they stand to gain up to $200 billion in revenue by 2019.
|
|
|
Post by thorsmightyhammer on Aug 25, 2013 9:14:29 GMT -6
No, mostly due to the public funds invested in the tools, technology, pharmaceuticals, personnel, and infrastructure. And not just in the U.S. I'll buy into that. A market was created and has to be paid for. Now keep in mind John I am an advocate for a Canadian style single payer type system. But how would we have been able to afford that type of stuff without some type insurance? I also think that eventually(likely in the next 10-20) years that with the advancements we have made that there are going to be some hard choices going to have to be made.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 25, 2013 13:05:16 GMT -6
Tman the report you show is not all factual as I was involved in purchasing health care for employees as a city council president the cost come from age class and how much spent the previous year and what type of policy you have for them. I never saw less than. Double digit increase in yearly premiums as the age class and use cause rises above 10 percent. Now the cheapest option increased less as that only made sense. I would like them to define FEWER double digit increases . Does that mean those that dropped insurance where then put under a no increase category? The information is only as good as the data collection. Below are a range of reports and many more one can find that states full implantation of the affordable health care act , will lead to higher cost for many. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul type of plan. Except many of the middle class with be the peters in this country and it will soon show it's true colors and Americans overall will not be happy. I sense all these new delays in the plan are for that exact reason. As long as you have private insurance involved it will not be close to what was advertised. I want real numbers of dollars spent nationwide on healthcare from insurance companies and their profits, then with some simple math we can saw what their percent or cut truly is. These reports are short and sweet take some time and look them over for people at UPS and Universities and city governments will take a big increase in rates, and many other large companies who will be forced to cut coverage as the cost will rise quickly and private business will not allow that to aspen in their companies. www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/employers-dropping-coverage-for-thousands-spouses-over-obamacare-costs/money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.htmlwww.cnsnews.com/news/article/affordable-care-1-pay-hike-costs-middle-class-family-9355-hike-premiums
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 25, 2013 15:04:25 GMT -6
believe whatever you want- obviously facts aren't going to change your mind, its already made up
you want additional facts on HC companies profits- then look them up.
Steven, consider that one of the biggest reasons for high HC costs, is unneeded and duplicate testing. and the reason for that is pretty simple, that they are quaranteed to get paid- and the conservative approach to "use the ER nobody gets turned away- has overloaded ER, and continued to make basic care costs soar- cause thats what the ER is turning into- basic care.
a single payer system is exactly what is needed.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Aug 25, 2013 17:01:13 GMT -6
"So in other words we good health care because of insurance?"
Unfortunately, not Everyone gets "good" health care especially if they don't have insurance. IMHO insurance of all kinds is nothing but a big racket. Insurance companies are betting that the "worst" won't ever happen to more people that they convince to pay premiums, than will happen. They can set the premiums at whatever the H*ll they want and people are so afraid that the "worst" could happen, they pay whatever premiums insurance companies ask them for. We've paid homeowners and car insurance all our lives and never have used it. We've paid a premiun for drug coverage for years and don't take any drugs. But we pay for the insurance because some day we "might" need it.
The clinic I go to can set the price to walk into the clinic at $275.00 because they negotiate and set prices in conjunction with insurance companies. The insurance company does not pay them that price, but if I didn't have insurance, I would have to pay it. Makes no sense at all. Insurers also work out contracts with hospitals to pay prices that are often much lower than what hospitals charge the uninsured. Costs for various surgeries and proceedures and even for annual physicals vary widely in different areas of the country, and even at the same hospitals and clinics in an area, just because they can get away with it. It's ridiculous and we all are held hostage to them.
I think in the long run the Affordable Health Care Act will help equalize things and be a win-win situation. Consumers won't be so tied into HMO's and will be able to compare prices and choose where and who to go to, and can't get turned down or dropped by insurance because of existing conditions. And, the insurance companies will have millions more poeple paying premiums for insurance that they don't use but need to have "just in case" (pure profit to them) and at some point may start negotiating overall lower rates and standardized rates with care givers, much like Medicare does now. I can't imagine they are happy about paying out 3 times as much for a proceedure in one setting than in another either.
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 26, 2013 7:27:16 GMT -6
The clinic I go to can set the price to walk into the clinic at $275.00 because they negotiate and set prices in conjunction with insurance companies. The insurance company does not pay them that price, but if I didn't have insurance, I would have to pay it. Makes no sense at all. Insurers also work out contracts with hospitals to pay prices that are often much lower than what hospitals charge the uninsured. Costs for various surgeries and proceedures and even for annual physicals vary widely in different areas of the country, and even at the same hospitals and clinics in an area, just because they can get away with it. It's ridiculous and we all are held hostage to them.
exactly true Pam- and its the same thing here as well- and the difference between whats billed to the uninsured, and what those with insurance pay- is often more than 50%
|
|