Another freedom gone

[TheFranklinParty]

Once again, you guys confuse me. The original post was making the point that there are different types of health insurance: general, emergency, and hospitalization. Hospitalization insurance is rather inexpensive and is the disaster coverage that everyone should have. The general care insurance is the one that has gotten out of control. Many of us feel that we would prefer to pay for our regular checkups and sniffle care out of pocket. For the average person it is much cheaper and provides individuals with more choices.

All of the current bills focus on a full coverage insurance policy which has proven the most expensive and most abused methodology. Why not just provide the 8 to 10 millions American Citizens with hospitalization insurance and be done with it. Then we can work on lowering healthcare costs through innovation.

 

[dahermit]

All of the current bills focus on a full coverage insurance policy which has proven the most expensive and most abused methodology. Why not just provide the 8 to 10 millions American Citizens with hospitalization insurance and be done with it. Then we can work on lowering healthcare costs through innovation.

How has innovation worked on lowering healthcare costs so far?

 

[top gun]

How has innovation worked on lowering healthcare costs so far?

IT'S WORKED GREAT!!!

Healthcare cost are down to all time lows. Less Americans are uninsured than ever before and the insurance companies have reorganized on their own and even taken cuts to make the whole system work better for the American people.

Oh wait!

That's all total Bull Sh!t isn't it?

sidebar: Good job dahermit making the point with the fewest words.

 

[Dr.Who]

Which is no different than the graduated income tax we now have. Moving into a higher tax bracket has not seemed to have stopped the wealthy from making more money and becoming ever richer compared to the average worker.

But taxes have caused poor people to be unable to go off of public aid just like providing free insurance to poor people but making them pay when they start making money will be an impediment to success.

And you are right that graduated income taxes do not stop wealthy people from making money. Yet that is exactly how they were sold to people. They don't work to even do the blatantly unfair thing they were meant to do.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, it not a good idea. A "good idea" would be socialized heath care where all people are covered and there are no insurance companies (parasites who inflate the cost of health care), no deductibles, no co-pays.

See above.

Insurance companies offer a valuable service that millions of people buy despite the fact that no one forces them to buy it. And the average profit of insurance companies is only about 4%.

But the democrats would make it illegal to not buy from them and would force millions more to become customers. The insurance companies will win big while those who are truly poor already have coverage so they don't benefit at all.

The only winners under this socialized plan is the insurance companies. Hmm, how socialized is it really since the goal seems to be to reward insurance companies - well temporarily anyway.

 

[Dr.Who]

How has innovation worked on lowering healthcare costs so far?

Insurance costs are already low - they only make 4% profits.

But people who sell medical appliances like wheelchairs make about 15% profits. They make the most in the whole industry and it is still lower than many other industries.

If we examine the health care industry we will find things that drive up costs that we don't need. Many of them were created by congress!!

 

[Dr.Who]

And this whole "it's about freedom thing" is getting very tedious.

It must be easy to say that when you don't care about other peoples freedom.

 

[Dr.Who]

All of the current bills focus on a full coverage insurance policy which has proven the most expensive and most abused methodology. Why not just provide the 8 to 10 millions American Citizens with hospitalization insurance and be done with it. Then we can work on lowering healthcare costs through innovation.

Every single American already has access to some kind of health care - whether they buy insurance or they are on public aid. So no one needs such a plan.

But you are right that if gov did provide such a policy to those who could not afford to spend the measly couple of hundred per year that it would cost a whole lot less than what is being dicussed. But the purpose of the bills are not to provide people who don't have health care with care (since all have care now), the purpose is for gov to have more control. Just look at the rules they are writing and see if this is not true. Why on earth would they write a rule that if your policy changes you must go on the public plan? What if you like the new policy better?

If the present admin really thought health care was an issue they would have used a tiney part of the 800 billion dollar stimulus to insure those who did not have it. They did not.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

How has innovation worked on lowering healthcare costs so far?

Check out the latest copy of Popular Science page 29...it's a new stethoscope that amplifies and records your heart beat , so it can be analyzed more effectively. It is being estimated that it will save $9.4B dollars per year in unnecessary echo cardiograms and cardiologist visits. even better it will catch dangerous murmurs that are sometimes overlooked.

If you want a flash from the past, how about penicillin or laparoscopy.

 

[Dr.Who]

Check out the latest copy of Popular Science page 29...it's a new stethoscope that amplifies and records your heart beat , so it can be analyzed more effectively. It is being estimated that it will save $9.4B dollars per year in unnecessary echo cardiograms and cardiologist visits. even better it will catch dangerous murmurs that are sometimes overlooked.

If you want a flash from the past, how about penicillin or laparoscopy.

Well done.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Here is an article showing one more freedom (well several) that are going away:

"I'm a registered Democrat living in New York City, and I buy my own health insurance. But now, having seen the health-care reform bill that passed the House, I'm preparing for life without health insurance. And unless I'm the only person covered under the Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield "Tradition Plus" plan, a lot of other people will end up just like me, uninsured."

Gee.....imagine this showing-up in The Murdoch Street Journal!!!!



Yeah...it's B.S., alright!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Insurance costs are already low - they only make 4% profits.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......



****​

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

*

 

[Dr.Who]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

The insurance industry only makes about 3.3% profit which places the industry behind 85 other industries in terms of how much profit they make.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/10/health-insurance-companies-rank-86-by.html

They even rank behind the almost entirely regulated industry of gas utilities which makes about a 12% profit.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

If you are going to leave out parts of your quotes people are going to know you are dishonest and ignore everything you say ( I have had you on ignore until a few minutes ago and in my mind you are on probation right now) Right there where you quoted "compared to the industry's" isn't it supposed to say "compared to the industry's average of only 3.3% Cigna's profits were much higher" or something like that?

Providing a source that one company is making profits in the 80% range (assuming that that is what the article is really saying) does not help you case when speaking about the whole industry.

According to that source this company makes a good profit because they lack competition. Of course it does not say that congress is responsible for the lack of competition. Congress causes most of our problems and then they want to fix them.

We should also note that the CBO has said that a government option will reduce competition not increase it.

 

[dahermit]

Check out the latest copy of Popular Science page 29...it's a new stethoscope that amplifies and records your heart beat , so it can be analyzed more effectively. It is being estimated that it will save $9.4B dollars per year in unnecessary echo cardiograms and cardiologist visits. even better it will catch dangerous murmurs that are sometimes overlooked.

Uh...Echo Cardiogram?

One example. Now consider how the new and expensive machinery and equipment has caused the cost of health care to rise. Who do you think pays for the new stethoscope costing thousands of dollars compared to a standard stethoscope that cost less then $10 and is used thousands of times before it needs replacing or calibration or maintenance.
Consider also the equipment costs for defensive medicine. If there was not "innovation" that equipment would not be used now to cover the Dr.'s butt, or to add to the cost to the patient and insurer. "Innovation" is a double edged sword.

Now, how much did that new amplified stethoscope equipment cost?

 

[dahermit]

Insurance costs are already low - they only make 4% profits.

If innovation saves money, and the insurance company "...only make 4% profit...", why has the cost of medical care gotten so expensive? Where is the money going? If both those are true, costs should have gone down or at least not be higher than inflation. Smoke and mirrors?