My Socialist Insurance Payments

[wufan]

Also of note...the cost to treat a person that dies of smoking related illness is less that that of someone that dies of age related death (natural causes).

[shocka khan]

Wufan, my apologies, I posted my info after your post.

It would have been nice to see what happened from 1992-2000. The session I sat in on was probably 1998 or 1999, IIRC.

Thanks for the information you provided and have a great weekend!

[Aargh]

Stores recover their losses from shoplifting by charging a higher rate to their paying customers. In the same way, private pay patients are subsidizing at least some of the losses a hospital has encountered for its uninsured patients. This is part of the reason that health care reform taxes the uninsured. In order for the system to work everyone has to be in the insurance pool. Again we're back to the compulsory insurance issue that we discussed about auto insurance.

So, if an uninsured person with no resources goes to a hospital and can't pay, the hospital just passes those costs on to their paying customers. In that case medicine is already fully socialized. Those who can pay are required to pay extra so those who cannot pay are provided with medical care.

The only way medical care is not fully socialized is when people who cannot pay are denied medical care. Without that, somebody is paying who is not receiving the services. The costs of providing medical care to the uninsured doesn't just "go away".

It seems that even without Medicare and Obamacare, we've had fully socialized medical care for quite some time.

In the '70's and '80's I was involved in the procurement of health insurance for employees where I worked. The sales people for the insurance companies would come to us each year with the exact same story. They had been told by the medical community how much costs were expected to rise the next year. Then the insurance company would raise their rates by that amount. All the medical community had to do was project the amount of money they wanted in the next year, and the inusrance company would provide them that money by raising the rates they charged for insurance.

[SHOCKvalue]

McPherson's premise (I believe his first name was Mike) was that medical inflation under Bush/Reagan was 2X the Clinton's. I think the graph pretty clearly bears this out.

Say what? Are you unable to interpret the very graph you supplied as a source?

Your graph says the following concerning medical cost inflation (do ask if you need me to walk you through the steps on a calculator):

2 Terms Reagan - 13.73% average annual growth rate
1 Term Bush I - 22.24%
2 Terms Clinton - 14.88%
2 Terms Bush II - 21.72%
1 Term (data effective) Obama - 21.74%

The above is not voodoo; it's your graph plus 3rd grade math.

[Shocker-maniac]

I think McPherson's premise is actually McPherson's fallacy. There is absolutely no logic in what he is asserting.

[SHOCKvalue]

I think McPherson's premise is actually McPherson's fallacy. There is absolutely no logic in what he is asserting.

I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but that is the inherent problem with nearly all leftists I come across - that is they rarely have any idea whatsoever how to calculate or interpret metrics, or understand economic fundamentals. It's like they're tone-deaf, or their brains aren't wired to compute such analytics. There are exceptions, but heck if it's not like trying to have a debate with an 8 year-old most of the time.

[Shocker-maniac]

Prior to the 1980's for profit hospitals would refuse to provide care to uninsured. They were literally putting them back in ambulances and sending them to not for profit hospitals. Not for profits such as religious based institutions and community hospitals that used Hill-Burrton funds to build are required to provide care to all regardless of ability to pay. This practice was called "patient dumping." In the 80's laws were passed to curtail this practice. These laws that were passed in the 80's are a major reason that a lot of care is being provided in very costly hospital ERs. Much of the care provided in ERs can be done in clinics and urgent care centers at about a 1/10th of the expense.

[wufan]

care is being provided in very costly hospital ERs. Much of the care provided in ERs can be done in clinics.

True. However, ERs are not actually required to treat the patient unless the ailment is threatening to life or limb, but they are required to see the patient and give any immediate triage required.

[Shocker-maniac]

True. However, ERs are not actually required to treat the patient unless the ailment is threatening to life or limb, but they are required to see the patient and give any immediate triage required.

It appears that hospitals have chosen to avoid the risk of litigation by not turning away patients. The real kicker though is that ERs are now huge profit centers for hospitals. Hence, all the advertising that we see about ER waiting times, call ahead reservations, etc.

If your condition is not life or limb threatening it will cost a lot less money to go to the doctors office, immediate care, or an urgent care center than going to the ER. When my children get sick over the weekend and we're concerned about something like strep throat we take them to the Walgreen's Take Care clinics and they can treat minor, acute conditions very well at a much lower cost. Even if you have insurance this is an issue because most of us have high deductible health plans where we're paying a lot of the upfront cost of health care or it is being paid from an HSA or health reimbursement account.

[Shocker-maniac]

In the '70's and '80's I was involved in the procurement of health insurance for employees where I worked. The sales people for the insurance companies would come to us each year with the exact same story. They had been told by the medical community how much costs were expected to rise the next year. Then the insurance company would raise their rates by that amount. All the medical community had to do was project the amount of money they wanted in the next year, and the inusrance company would provide them that money by raising the rates they charged for insurance.

I don't think that is quite how it works. Below are links to websites that describes how health insurance premiums are determined.

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2010/09/...ms-determined/

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/wp-conte...Determined.pdf

http://ahip.org/Issues/Premiums-101.aspx

[shocka khan]

I know that reading for comprehension is something that neoconservatives aren't good at, many aren't good at math, either, that's why they aren't scientists.

However, the Forbes article said the following:
"The Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services today said 2012 health spending grew more slowly than the gross domestic product. Health spending growth has been in the range of 3.6 percent to 3.8 percent since 2009, the government said."

Now here's some math even math-challenged people can understand. Obama has been president since February 2009.
3.6X3 (2009-2012) = 10.8%.
3.8X3 (2009-2012) = 11.4%.

According to this chart:

http://forecast-chart.com/inflation-medical-care-cost.html

medical inflation was around 4% in 2013 and is projected to be no more than 2.1% in 2014. Worst case scenario is that for the last 6 years the inflation was 17.5 percent, yet someone posting here said the rate was 21.4 percent for four years. I wonder where his information was sourced from?

[Play Angry]

Good grief, if something goes up 3.6% a year for 3 consecutive years, the cumulative increase isn't 10.8%.

Maybe don't be a math simpleton before taking a condescending tone.

[shocka khan]

Correct, I did not take into consideration the compounding value, Play Angry. But how much difference does the compounding make? Not enough to be material.

Remember, the gist of my point was to demonstrate, in a very simple manner, the approximate rise in medical care costs since 2009, as certain someones here were saying that their number was 21.74 percent over 4 years, which is obviously not correct.

[Play Angry]

The delicious irony of your lecture on math skills was my one and only point.

[SB Shock]

Correct, I did not take into consideration the compounding value, Play Angry. But how much difference does the compounding make? Not enough to be material.

Remember, the gist of my point was to demonstrate, in a very simple manner,

wait.....you are going to lecture people on math, and then when your own math is incorrect it "the gist"......snicker.

I hope you are not a engineering student.