part of the reason health care costs so much

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

inmytree wrote:

hey, what's with the cute one liners...?

anyway, I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option, then how can we pay for UHC...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option..oh my, does that mean UHC is actually attanable and affordable...

I know it's hard to connect things sometimes, I should have spelled it out for you...sorry...

this bill and UHC are two vastly different things.

I wonder if we can't pay for anything, you know like a public option (a gov't run program), then how can we pay for UHC (a gov't run program)...oh wait, the article I quoted says that we'll save money with a public option (a gov't run program).. oh my, does that mean UHC (a gov't run program) is actually attainable and affordable...

sounds like you just want to lump together everything the government does as an equal "(gov't run program)"

tell me then, is social security and medicare affordable and sustainable?

decides2dream

jlew24asu wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

seriously...you argue round and round an issue...instead of simply focusing on what TRULY bothers you about it. THIS is your issue.

um yes. cost, lose of choices, and lowered quality of care have always been my concerns. why do you sound surprised?

decides2dream wrote:

and i have said from day one of COURSE taxes will go up - duh! but more than likely, my actual out of pocket costs won't...they could even be cheaper......who knows? all i DO know is the ideal of EVERYone having health coverage, every single citizen, for LIFE....is worth it. as i said, i see it in the same light as education, and i personlly believe it is our responsibility to have education and healthcare access for ALL. and actually...it IS the american way, if it is deemed the will of the people.

higher taxes are out of pocket costs.

decides2dream wrote:

why bother with the insurance industry?
we don't need a middleman. i don't think there is any need to have a for profit nature within the healthcare system. i personally do think it should be a governmental system. again, where you and i disagree. why should some stockholder benefit from my healthcare costs? no thanks. stocks are for products...i don't think healthcare should be a product.

I understand where you are coming from here. but I dont think the government is any better and far worse actually at providing a high quality product.

decides2dream wrote:

face it, you and i see this fundamentally in a differnt light. i don't have aproblem with that. the only thing i 'argue' is when you say it's impossible to fund and so on.

nothing is impossible if you raise taxes, borrow, and print money. doesnt mean its the right thing to do

and cost, loss of choices and quality of care...all have been covered.
again, outside of being able to choose NOT to have healthcare, i don't see any lack of choice. i have next to no choice as it is now. i think that is a small price to pay. the cost and quality of care we have debated back and forth numerous times already, and i foresee UHC being able to handle them both satisfactorily. you've not provided me with any real information that would make me think otherwise. of course, i know you disagree too. (again, if you remember...also why we stopped 'debating' elsewhere on the topic, realizing neither of us were going to alter)


christ jlew......higher taxes are out of pocket costs, yes.
however, if i currently pay say $300 a month towards health insurance....and INSTEAD pay $300 more in taxes...my out of pocket costs remain the SAME. you see? THAt was my point. there is nothing to suggest that my out of pocket costs will absolutely be higher...they could be lower....just don't know. i already addressed this above. i said, some may get raised, some may lower, some may remain flat...all to balance out the overall costs. of course i cannot answer this definitivelty. and this again covers 'raising taxes'.....yes...they will! but again, does not mean it will cost me more out of pocket....and there is nothing to suggest we will need to print or borrow $$$. man, you like to rehash those speculations. and yes, raising taxes Is the right thing to do...if it means healthcare for all, for life.....and most especially if, overall....the 'collective cost' really is no more, maybe even less (no more profits for stockholders!) than it is now. and yea...there is nothing to suggest quality of care will suffer, tho i know you believe it will. again, i point you to the 'healthcare rationing' thread for our current quality care as one example.


anyhoo....once again, i have personally reached my impasse on this discussion with you. we honestly have nothing else to say. i find it exasperating really, rehashing the same information...and yea...saying things, the same things, in different ways....to no avail. i have no *need* to convince you of my pov. and there comes a point of 'passing the day'...and just being tedious, and i am there. if you say anything else later that annoys me...i'll certainly pop back in :P...and/or when others pop in and comment. otherwise...i'm outta here. i think i need to obsess over the philly 10.31 show some more..... catch ya on the porch! have fun!

decides2dream

decides2dream wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

didn't we cover this?
we all pay for heathcare now...

my insurance premium covers many things...
1. commission for the broker that sold me the insurance
2. profit to the insurance company
3. admin for numerous billing clerks that are involved in every transaction involving my medical care
4. my doctor

In France they have virtually no admin costs....no billing clerks, no insurance company profits/CEO Salaries, etc....you walk into a clinic and the only people in there are medical staff...no clerks

there is tremendous SAVINGS in UHC....not sure why you don't see that

thank you......and yes, many, many times....
exactly.


*that ALONE would probably save billions...maybe more. couple that with our new tax contributions (individuals + private companies) in lieu of payments to an insurance carrier = funding for UHC. i think we can afford it, i do believe it's doable, just thinking of these 2 issues alone....more than possible.


it's getting RID of the 'for profit' nature of healthcare, and all these for profit organizations based around it that is the REAL problem, tho it shouldn't be....

ALL of this, in a concise little nutshell is it for me. we can afford it, we can continue our quality of care, we can continue funding innovative research and we can have healthcare coverage for all, for life.


hell, if france can do it....we certainly should be able to, right?
(no insult to my frenchie friends ....just playin' along)

jlew24asu

decides2dream wrote:

and cost, loss of choices and quality of care...all have been covered.
again, outside of being able to choose NOT to have healthcare, i don't see any lack of choice. i have next to no choice as it is now. i think that is a small price to pay. the cost and quality of care we have debated back and forth numerous times already, and i foresee UHC being able to handle them both satisfactorily. you've not provided me with any real information that would make me think otherwise. of course, i know you disagree too. (again, if you remember...also why we stopped 'debating' elsewhere on the topic, realizing neither of us were going to alter)

I've posted this before..

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/univers ... care.htm... I agree with this assessment.

Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.

Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.

decides2dream wrote:

christ jlew......higher taxes are out of pocket costs, yes.
however, if i currently pay say $300 a month towards health insurance....and INSTEAD pay $300 more in taxes...my out of pocket costs remain the SAME. you see? THAt was my point.

ok ok I apologize. I see your point xoxo.

decides2dream wrote:

there is nothing to suggest that my out of pocket costs will absolutely be higher...they could be lower....just don't know. i already addressed this above. i said, some may get raised, some may lower, some may remain flat...all to balance out the overall costs. of course i cannot answer this definitivelty. and this again covers 'raising taxes'.....yes...they will! but again, does not mean it will cost me more out of pocket....and there is nothing to suggest we will need to print or borrow $$$. man, you like to rehash those speculations. and yes, raising taxes Is the right thing to do...if it means healthcare for all, for life.....and most especially if, overall....the 'collective cost' really is no more, maybe even less (no more profits for stockholders!) than it is now. and yea...there is nothing to suggest quality of care will suffer, tho i know you believe it will. again, i point you to the 'healthcare rationing' thread for our current quality care as one example.

The U.S. employer-based health insurance market provides insurance coverage to nearly two-thirds of the population under 65. you want to take that away, meaning ALL of these people WILL pay higher taxes.

as well as those who choose not to have any and live a healthy lifestyle.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

the US currently spends the most on health care with the least results ... it is my opinion that this entire debate can be summarized as follows:

Is UHC affordable? Absolutely - in fact, with nominal increases to taxation even. The problem in the US is that the majority of that spending is going to pay for things that don't really have to deal with health care. When you factor in the profits insurance, pharmaceuticals, treatment clinics, etc. want to make and the management bonuses - it's extremely inefficient. I think a good example is this. The nike shoe. You aren't paying $150 because it costs that much to make the shoe - you are paying that much so phil knight can make a boat load of money and so you can pay tiger woods to wear the logo. UHC is in the same boat - you're spending all that money to make sure all these businesses make lots of money.

wrong. you pay $150 because that is what people are willing to spend for a high quality product. if Nike shoes cost $15,000 per pair, no one would buy them. if they were sold for $10 a pair, the quality would not be as good.

polaris_x wrote:

The problem is how do you break down this system that ultimately runs this country. The US is at war in Iraq simply so companies who control the gov't can make lots of money;

:roll:

In England they compensate the care providers based on the health of their patients
i.e....how many stopped smoking?, how many lost weight over one year? how many reduced their blood pressure

that promotes quality....

my doctor goes room to room billing insurance companies for the visit and writing prescriptions for whatever drug was promoted to him that week be a drug rep....is that better quality?

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

In England they compensate the care providers based on the health of their patients
i.e....how many stopped smoking?, how many lost weight over one year? how many reduced their blood pressure

that promotes quality....

I absolutely support tax payer dollars going towards prevention and incentives to stay healthy

Gern Blansten wrote:

my doctor goes room to room billing insurance companies for the visit and writing prescriptions for whatever drug was promoted to him that week be a drug rep....is that better quality?

no. but I dont see how UHC eliminates this

Gern Blansten

it's obvious jlew hasn't had the life experiences that are required to develop a good opinion on this subject

hell I would probably be in his spot if I didn't experience a lot of these things first hand

I pay about $450/month for a $5,500 deductible plan.....I have had this for four years and have NEVER used $1 of insurance because luckily we have been healthy and have not been billed more than our deductible

but it is a fact that every year my premium increases 20-25%....for what?

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

In England they compensate the care providers based on the health of their patients
i.e....how many stopped smoking?, how many lost weight over one year? how many reduced their blood pressure

that promotes quality....

I absolutely support tax payer dollars going towards prevention and incentives to stay healthy

Gern Blansten wrote:

my doctor goes room to room billing insurance companies for the visit and writing prescriptions for whatever drug was promoted to him that week be a drug rep....is that better quality?

no. but I dont see how UHC eliminates this

uh....maybe follow the English system??? focus on preventative care instead of after the fact???

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

it's obvious jlew hasn't had the life experiences that are required to develop a good opinion on this subject

no of course not. I can only carry your opinion and nothing else. what arrogant piece of work you are.

Gern Blansten wrote:

hell I would probably be in his spot if I didn't experience a lot of these things first hand

I pay about $450/month for a $5,500 deductible plan.....I have had this for four years and have NEVER used $1 of insurance because luckily we have been healthy and have not been billed more than our deductible

but it is a fact that every year my premium increases 20-25%....for what?

guess what. not everyone has the same plan as you. unfucking real the arrogance on you. you are probably very OLD and at much higher risk of developing health issues.

if you don't like the high cost or your insurance, drop your coverage. or change plans.

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

uh....maybe follow the English system??? focus on preventative care instead of after the fact???

uh.....maybe read what I said in the very same post you quoted. :roll:

I absolutely support tax payer dollars going towards prevention and incentives to stay healthy

Kat

Stop the personal comments on each other or be banned.

Stick to the topic of the thread or begone.

Thread is being closed because it is being derailed.

Admin