the_grip on 7/10/2009 at 15:47
Starting this thread for two reasons...
a. to discuss the whole health care reform debate. Many of my conservative friends are raising a stink b/c they feel the bill is being rushed to pass for political support reasons without a chance to review it. Personally, I have not kept up enough on the subject, so any input as to what is going on (in general, not just in rushing the bill) is appreciated... I'm trying to do some Google work but it's hard to find hard facts.
b. it seems to me that continually rising healthcare costs are probably a product of demand outpacing supply or supply being limited. Does it not seem logical to prompt a fall in healthcare prices by stimulating an increase in supply (i.e. more doctors, etc.)?
scarykitties on 7/10/2009 at 16:46
I wish I knew more about the healthcare thing. I know that my father, a stalwart conservative, is convinced that Obama will slip some sneaky clause into the healthcare reform that will hand over the USA to Islam, or something similarly ridiculous and paranoid.
With that said, I don't know what is in the bill. Is it true that no one who voted on it actually read it all the way through?
I believe I read somewhere that rising healthcare costs are a combination of life insurance companies literally squeezing the lifeblood out of people for all they're worth and hospitals having a monopoly, and thus the ability to charge whatever they like. Sure, you technically have a choice of hospital, but when you're on death's doorstep in the emergency room, are you really in a position to shop for service?
DDL on 7/10/2009 at 17:01
That and the fact that medical insurance companies are pretty much motivated to deny care wherever possible, since that's more profitable.
And they spend YOUR insurance money on lawyers to win the cases denying you care...which is pretty galling however you look at it.
//gross oversimplification, long live the NHS, etc etc etc
the_grip on 7/10/2009 at 17:16
Regarding healthcare insurance, I've also heard that there is an unspoken conflict of interest - that is, the conflict between patient vs. shareholder in the insurance company. This is never advertised but supposedly is a big problem... supposedly is my escape clause b/c I've only heard this.
SD on 7/10/2009 at 18:49
It certainly is a big problem to be the only major industrial nation still linking healthcare to private profit, especially when you have the biggest insurance companies routinely rejecting more than a fifth of insurance claims.
You want to talk about "death panels", these guys are the real death panels.
Quote:
Researchers from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six insurers rejected 45.7 million claims -- 22 percent of all claims.
For the first half of 2009, as the national debate over healthcare reform was escalating, the rejection rates are even more striking.
Claims denial rates by leading California insurers, first six months of 2009:* PacifiCare -- 39.6 percent
* Cigna -- 32.7 percent
* HealthNet -- 30 percent
* Kaiser Permanente -- 28.3 percent
* Blue Cross -- 27.9 percent
* Aetna -- 6.4 percent
The big 18 health insurance firms made close to a $16bn profit last year. Is it any wonder you have the highest healthcare costs in the world? This is a dysfunctional system. Hell, of course it's dysfunctional; any setup that incentivises firms to not treat ill people is only going to have one outcome - a shitload of untreated ill people. Even a braindead idiot can see this.
the_grip on 7/10/2009 at 19:06
Yeah I definitely agree. However, my thought is also to broach it from the other angle... that is, bring the number of doctors, etc., up (perhaps by lowering the crazy standards kept for actually schooling and producing doctors, etc.). In other words, more doctors could perhaps help (not fix by itself) the issue.
(as an aside on health insurance... hilarious: (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITT6bYYGVfM) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITT6bYYGVfM)
scarykitties on 7/10/2009 at 19:16
Yes, it seems obvious that it's bad, but conservatives (at least my dad in particular) see it as a "necessary evil," as the alternative, to him, would be USSR-style lines for even the most basic medical care. Have a punctured lung? Stand in line, because the guy with a stubbed toe was there first, and there's no incentive for them to go after the greater injury in order to gain bigger profit, but instead treat them as they come, causing huge waiting lists for things that are urgent.
Now, I'm not supporting that view, but that's what his view is. Any counter-arguments or, preferably, assurances that it wouldn't come to that?
the_grip on 7/10/2009 at 19:24
scarykitties honestly I think those cases are rarer. I think the more practical cases would be when it comes down to deciding between the 90 year old needing some serious heavy duty expensive treatment with a short timespan in terms of life expectations vs. a younger person needing a procedure. It could get accused of ageism. However, speaking from me personally, it makes more sense to give the treatment to the younger person. Supposedly in terms of dollar amounts like 95% of health care costs are consumed in the last five years or so of a person's life (on average)
For all intensive purposes, I think some form of *basic* care for everyone is plausible and then others could pay up for more sophisticated or expensive care. I'm really not very well versed on the issue because there are many places that do offer basic care for "free" or what have you (free in quotes b/c somewhere somebody will pay for anything "free"). There is the economic side of me that leans away from some kind of national or standardized care, but then there is also the practically compassionate side of me that leans towards it. I think it does boil back to costs that are a combination of insurance agencies, malpractice lawsuits, and perhaps stringent requirements for doctors (i.e. limiting the supply). I'm sure there are others and I'm just speculating on all this trying to tease it all out with other folks' input.
scarykitties on 7/10/2009 at 19:29
Ah, yes. That's another concern of his (being 67); that he'll be denied service because of his age if he needs it, because it isn't economically efficient. I suppose next comes Soylent Green.
I'd forgotten about that concern.
Clearly, as obvious as it is that current systems are flawed, there are enough (legit) concerns to explain why we don't have this sort of thing.
D'Juhn Keep on 7/10/2009 at 19:36
Quote Posted by the_grip
For all intensive purposes
no
ok to make this less of a pointless pointing out of the syndrome where people mindlessly use words without thinking about them (there must be a word for this)
Quote Posted by the_grip
There is the economic side of me that leans away from some kind of national or standardized care, but then there is also the practically compassionate side of me that leans towards it.
Why would your economic side lean away from an NHS? Your current system does (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1900242#post1900242) cost more you know
