My Socialist Insurance Payments

[MoValley John]

I read into it perfectly. You want perfect healthcare. You think what we had prior to medicare was an abject failure. You think volunteerism in Healthcare failed. You would be wrong.

You want healthcare utopia. It doesn't exit. It never will exist. Just as in every other aspect of our society, like it or not, some people will always be marginalized within the healthcare system. I cite the examples of what is really happening in Europe because single payer IS the utopia we are being sold. The European model is what is being pushed by the left. If you think charity failed prior to medicare, then you need to take an honest look at what medicare has done, and because you want solutions you need to look at what is really happening in Europe, good and bad. What is happening to the elderly in the UK and Germany is relevant, as is the successes in Norway.

As for my knowledge, I'm not an expert, but I do associate with many. Every day. You went douche bag with your Biden comment.

[Play Angry]

I read into it perfectly. You want perfect healthcare.

Never said this. I guess, like most of us, I would enjoy a better system than we have now.

You think what we had prior to medicare was an abject failure. You think volunteerism in Healthcare failed. You would be wrong.

Never said abject failure or anything similar. Disputed your point that there was not a problem pre-1965 with service to the poor and elderly. Asked for support to your arguments and received links to German old people.

You want healthcare utopia.

See above.

It doesn't exit. It never will exist.

Agreed.

Just as in every other aspect of our society, like it or not, some people will always be marginalized within the healthcare system. I cite the examples of what is really happening in Europe because single payer IS the utopia we are being sold. The European model is what is being pushed by the left.

Yeah, I think we pretty much agree here so I'm unsure why it was inserted to a discussion about whether medicare was implemented in response to real problems.

If you think charity failed prior to medicare, then you need to take an honest look at what medicare has done, and because you want solutions you need to look at what is really happening in Europe, good and bad. What is happening to the elderly in the UK and Germany is relevant, as is the successes in Norway.

Of course what is happening elsewhere is relevant to the discussion. Let's use better ammo than anecdotes and specific-incident news articles. Also, strawman.

As for my knowledge, I'm not an expert, but I do associate with many. Every day. You went douche bag with your Biden comment.

I apologize for the potash factory part.

[MoValley John]

The expectations of healthcare are unreal. So how do you make it better, I don't know? We have a system that works pretty damned good. Because of regulation and Medicare, our system has gotten too expensive. Richard Nixon was the first President that tried to tackle medicare. All he came up with were price controls and this little insurance option known as HMO's. Neither were positive options, but at the same time, it was less than a decade into medicare and Nixon tried to stop the hemorrhaging. Didn't work. Each and every subsequent attempt at reeling in medicare has failed. The price controls put in place for medicare were simply shifted to the private sector. So, now we get to fund medicare with taxes, then further fund medicare through higher healthcare costs and higher insurance premiums. All the while, the left uses our rising costs as a reason to shift to the European system.

How do we fix this I DON'T KNOW! But if we say Germans exporting elderly has no purpose in the discussion and is a straw man, well, we get what we deserve. Another thing to consider is understanding that we as Americans give excellent care to our elderly. We are paying a fortune for grandma. In Germany, where the loves to cite as healthcare utopia, they won't pay for grandma and are shipping her to Japan. In England, grandma goes to a hospital where she is put in a corner and ignored. So, is our system all bad, or is it just bloated? How do we care for grandma AND control costs? I don't know.

The fact of the matter is this, people get sick, people die, people suffer. Always have, always will. As I stated in the beginning, we have unreal expectations of healthcare. We missed some prior to medicare and we miss some now. I think we can try to better identify the marginalized, but we will never be perfect. We will never cure all cancers and people will always bitching about how they aren't being handled. Marcus Welby and Gregory House are the fantasies, but they are what we judge our healthcare from. We really aren't doing too bad, we just spend way too much.


End 9 long ramble.

[Shocker-maniac]

If you want good solid data and analysis on what is driving health care instead of gibber-gabber, check this out.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/de...ept%202012.pdf

[SB Shock]

If you want good solid data and analysis on what is driving health care instead of gibber-gabber, check this out.

gibber jabber from Barak "Ebola" Obama's former adviser (who runs the Bipartisan Policy Center) on Energy and the environment is probably the last person I care to listen to.

It points are:

1. Employee health care plans encourage use and are to generous in benifits
2. Employers get tax breaks for providing health care and is loss of taxable income to the federal government at the company and personal level.
3. Good health care means it will be utilized because consumers don't have to pay an arm and leg - and this is not good.
4. American culture tries to prolong life regardless of whether it is worth it.
5. Need to consildate providers because it will be more efficient (single payer anyone?)

[Shocker-maniac]

If that doesn't suit you, try this one for size. Again points out that all the recent ramblings on this thread are nothing more than mindless drabble.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...lthcare-costs/

[Shocker-maniac]

Here's another one off the rack. How does it fit? Again it refutes pretty much all of the recent posts on this thread.

BTW, @PlayAngry: this one addresses medical malpractice/Defensive Medicine begining on pg 10 of the report I believe.

http://www.physiciansfoundation.org/...ember_2012.pdf

[MoValley John]

Except for the two above sources cited, you really need to look into what they are saying. In the Forbes article in particular, they talk at great lengths about administrative costs and administrative overhead. Blame is thrown at insurance, but fails to identify that medicare is insurance. Also, every hospital and doctors office uses medical coders for billing and administration. This coding is used for insurance but was specifically set up for medicare. Also, the electronic records portion cited as an expense was mandated by the government, is currently in use at all hospitals and required by both medicare and the ACA.

If you look at all of the blue ribbon reports, the government and political think tank reports and so on, they will all give various valid reasons for costs, they will explain them but none of them will link those costs directly to medicare. As I said early on, nobody has the guts to blame medicare, but if you look at the many reasons given for out of control costs, many point directly back to medicare.

[Shocker-maniac]

The point of these articles are that there are SEVERAL factors that are driving health care costs NOT just one. Health care payment reform including for Medicare is needed as the current system incentivizes over utilization of health care services. Over utilization not only drives up costs but poses risks to patients, as well. Anyone that claims that obesity and lifestyle are not drivers of healthcare costs is completely misinformed.

[Aargh]

I fear we've wandered into ideologies, and you can't debate, fight against, or defeat ideologies.. Ideologies represent a mindset that is convinced of its' superior position and that position is not open for debate or discussion. All you get is another iteration of the ideology.

We can no sooner go back to pre-1965 health care than we can find this car in a dealer's showroom

The genie is out of the bottle. I'm still not convinced that Medicare, by the fact it is a government program, is the cause of skyrocketing medical costs. Providing medical care to elderly, who previously did not have that care, extends the lives of the poor elderly and that is a huge factor in rising costs. It costs more to keep the elderly, who have not had prior medical care, alive than it costs to maintain elderly with a lifetime of medical care.

We already have socialized medicine, so blaming Obamacare for creating socialized medicine misses the fact that we're already paying for the uninsured. Obamacre moves the payment for the uninsured from medical costs to taxation.

In theory, whether we pay for medical care for the poor through higher costs for our medical services or through taxes, the amount we pay should be the same. Unfortunately, the medical community will continue striving to maximize their income (which wasn't happening in 1965).

In simplistic terms, the Republican party is never going to support legislation that limits the profits of private enterprise, and the Democratic party is never going to support legislation that denies medical care to the poorest among us.

[Aargh]

I see 2 options:

1) Socialize medical care by putting the government in charge of it. There will be abuse by both the recipients and the providers of medical care. It will probably require legislation to treat the medical industry as if it were a monopoly - like we treat the utility companies. This is going to be very expensive to the taxpayers or is going to drive the national debt considerably higher.

2) Everybody pays their own medical costs (through self-insurance or paid policies, typically through employment). In this situation, the wealthy have outstanding medical care and the poor have none. The really big problem with this is that there are way more poor than wealthy, and that gap is growing. Eventually, the poor will be activated to vote and they will vote to have the wealthy pay for their health care.

[ShockTalk]

Most here are much more informed than I, but I will put my 2 cents in about a couple of items.

The point of these articles are that there are SEVERAL factors that are driving health care costs NOT just one. Health care payment reform including for Medicare is needed as the current system incentivizes over utilization of health care services. Over utilization not only drives up costs but poses risks to patients, as well. Anyone that claims that obesity and lifestyle are not drivers of healthcare costs is completely misinformed.

You are correct. However, in the private market place, these items would create a penalty in the form of higher premiums or limited coverage. As I see it, socialized medical care may well ignore these life choices and spread the cost burden on those with a more healthy lifestyle as well. Thus, the lifestyle problem grows.

I see 2 options:

1) Socialize medical care by putting the government in charge of it. There will be abuse by both the recipients and the providers of medical care. It will probably require legislation to treat the medical industry as if it were a monopoly - like we treat the utility companies. This is going to be very expensive to the taxpayers or is going to drive the national debt considerably higher.

2) Everybody pays their own medical costs (through self-insurance or paid policies, typically through employment). In this situation, the wealthy have outstanding medical care and the poor have none. The really big problem with this is that there are way more poor than wealthy, and that gap is growing. Eventually, the poor will be activated to vote and they will vote to have the wealthy pay for their health care.

First, let's remove the notion that it is only the "wealthy" that pays. We will all pay, if you follow my drift. Nevertheless, if you have been self-employed, retire, and have $1,000,000 bucks saved, that will get you about $2,500 bucks a month if you're trying to hold on to principle. Being a millionaire is not what it use to be. Pitting the "haves" against the "have nots" is fear mongering and serves no one.

However, you are correct, the gap is widening. This is not a medical care problem, but a much bigger problem. As long as those in power want to give the farm away, more and more people will take it, and it will be hell ever trying to get them to support themselves on their own two feet in the future. Likewise, those on the other side of the fence need to be more socially aware, responsible and less selfish on the short term or the America they know now and in the past will be gone for their own future generations. A democracy needs to have a large, strong middle class.

[shocka khan]

Before we had national health care, we also had 'socialized' insurance in the form of group insurance. I guess we still do, I'm sure people have had these types of experiences.

I have a friend, his health is failing because he is overweight and diabetic. He's been that way for a long time. He's retired now (but still teaching at local universities).

While he was still working, he had the stomach stapling bariatric procedure performed. His weight loss lasted for about 2 years. One year to lose the weight and another year to gain it all back.

Since he (and many others) were part of our group health insurance plan, my insurance dollars subsidized his poor lifestyle choices. I paid for his useless bariatric surgery through increased premiums for my group. He was as republican as they come (much more conservative than I am) and strongly believed in personal responsibility, EXCEPT when it came to him taking responsibility for his own health. Then it was perfectly fine for him to go to what seemed like 10 (count 'em 10!) specialists. He had a dietician (to help him lose weight), cardiologist (complications from diabetes), gp, podiatrist (for his neuropathy), optomologist (for his diabetic retinopathy). It almost seemed like he spent more time in the doctor's office than he spent at work (he had to see each one at least monthly, sometimes more frequently).

People need to take responsibility for their own personal medical choices or suffer the consequences.
People should not have bariatric surgery UNLESS they also have counseling to help them manage/maintain their weight.

Doctors advertise in magazines, radio and TV about the boutique practices and services they offer. They create demand for these services where none previously existed. I think that this is wrong.

Doctors advertising their boutique services should not be allowed to mention 'we'll help you with insurance' in their ads. In fact, insurance should flat refuse to pay for these services unless absolutely necessary.
People demanding boutique services should have to pay for them out of their pocket.
Pharamaceutical companies should not be allowed to advertise about shingles (Had 'em, didn't need a shot, they were painful, but I think Terry Bradshaw's a wuss if he thinks it hurt that much), toe fungus, gout (I take allopurinol, which is a generic, thank you) or any other medications where generics are effective and plentiful.

ALL doctors should be required to justify any non-generic medications given to their patients (the pharmas like to give honorariums, training in Hawaii, expensive meals and gifts to induce docs to prescribe their medicines).

More needs to be done to reduce fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Especially in certain areas of the country (like Miami) where it is a cottage industry.

I don't think we can do all these things effectively, but if we could only do a few of them better, it would take a bite out of the costs.

[ShockBand]

It would probably never happen, but what kind of impact would there be if health insurance was completely decoupled from employment? With the exception of some life insurance, most insurances are not tied to employers. Would that help? Would it be politically impossible.

[Kung Wu]

Before we had national health care, we also had 'socialized' insurance in the form of group insurance. I guess we still do, I'm sure people have had these types of experiences.

I have a friend, his health is failing because he is overweight and diabetic. He's been that way for a long time. He's retired now (but still teaching at local universities).

While he was still working, he had the stomach stapling bariatric procedure performed. His weight loss lasted for about 2 years. One year to lose the weight and another year to gain it all back.

Since he (and many others) were part of our group health insurance plan, my insurance dollars subsidized his poor lifestyle choices. I paid for his useless bariatric surgery through increased premiums for my group. He was as republican as they come (much more conservative than I am) and strongly believed in personal responsibility, EXCEPT when it came to him taking responsibility for his own health. Then it was perfectly fine for him to go to what seemed like 10 (count 'em 10!) specialists. He had a dietician (to help him lose weight), cardiologist (complications from diabetes), gp, podiatrist (for his neuropathy), optomologist (for his diabetic retinopathy). It almost seemed like he spent more time in the doctor's office than he spent at work (he had to see each one at least monthly, sometimes more frequently).

People need to take responsibility for their own personal medical choices or suffer the consequences.
People should not have bariatric surgery UNLESS they also have counseling to help them manage/maintain their weight.

Doctors advertise in magazines, radio and TV about the boutique practices and services they offer. They create demand for these services where none previously existed. I think that this is wrong.

Doctors advertising their boutique services should not be allowed to mention 'we'll help you with insurance' in their ads. In fact, insurance should flat refuse to pay for these services unless absolutely necessary.
People demanding boutique services should have to pay for them out of their pocket.
Pharamaceutical companies should not be allowed to advertise about shingles (Had 'em, didn't need a shot, they were painful, but I think Terry Bradshaw's a wuss if he thinks it hurt that much), toe fungus, gout (I take allopurinol, which is a generic, thank you) or any other medications where generics are effective and plentiful.

ALL doctors should be required to justify any non-generic medications given to their patients (the pharmas like to give honorariums, training in Hawaii, expensive meals and gifts to induce docs to prescribe their medicines).

More needs to be done to reduce fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. Especially in certain areas of the country (like Miami) where it is a cottage industry.

I don't think we can do all these things effectively, but if we could only do a few of them better, it would take a bite out of the costs.

Actually pretty reasonable and well thought out process here, Koo Koo.

In Singapore the health care system operates like our private HSA style health insurance -- high deductibles backed by a medical savings plan. The high deductibles make you really think about the services you need, make you ask questions like "what will this cost, what will that cost". The medical savings plan bails you out when you are in no situation to be asking questions like in emergencies. The medical savings plan is also there for what you are calling "boutique" services -- so you can burn your medical plan on boutique stuff, but it will no longer be there to bail you out if you have an emergency if you choose to do so (of course it accrues over a lifetime so you might have a ton of money in there for both things). I am HUGE fan of HSA style insurance and it is most certainly the best type of private insurance there is in America bar-none. If employers are covering a lot of your premiums on non-HSA insurance then it might (probably) not make sense to be on an HSA, but other than that, it's typically the best if available to you.