Healthcare Hypocricy?

[kcshocker11]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ng-reform.html

I can go on and on. These countries that "rank highly" in healthcare, do not provide adequate healthcare to the elderly. Furthermore, they have no idea how to fix the problem. As the articles point out, with regard to expensive elder care, single payer simply can't afford to provide care to the aged.

Their talking about nursing homes here

[Kung Wu]

Single payer, as a system, should cover all costs of healthcare through government funding (taxes). If the government cannot deliver healthcare in this manner, the poor, once again, are adversely harmed. The failure in single payer in Europe is that the poor, just like in the US, are the people that dont receive adaquate care.

In the US, the elderly are cared for because we demand it. The demand for quality geriatric care in the US, combined with the government shifting costs to the peivate sector, balloon insurance premiums. Countries with single payer systems simply cannot afford to take care of their elderly, so they don't. Its their dirty little secret.

I wondered the exact same thing. How can it be necessary in a true single payer system that 3rd party private insurance is necessary? I'm too busy to research it, but because nearly any system of price controls is doomed to fail from its inception it's like asking "why does that guy that just got hit by a bus and bleeding all over the road have a fever."

[kcshocker11]

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9393742/Elderly-betrayed-over-care-funding-reform.html" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9393742/Elderly-betrayed-over-care-funding-reform.html</a><br>
<br>
I can go on and on. These countries that "rank highly" in healthcare, do not provide adequate healthcare to the elderly. Furthermore, they have no idea how to fix the problem. As the articles point out, with regard to expensive elder care, single payer simply can't afford to provide care to the aged.

Their talking about nursing homes here not daily healthcare. They are discussing how to cover nursing home costs, I believe. I am sorry but single payer works quite well. You will notice no one is attempting to convert to our system. When they all start trying to adopt our healthcare system pre ACA then you can talk.

[SubGod22]

There was recently an article about how a few of the European countries are moving away from single-payer because it's not maintainable. It's only a matter of time before more start doing the same.

[CBB_Fan]

Bah, I'm gone for a few days and this thread gets away from me.

"Monopoly." Seriously?

"Collusion." What?!

"Employers subsidizing employees prevents competition." Huh? You don't have to take your employer's insurance -- feel free to sign up for 1,000's of other organization's group insurances.

"Consumers don't know what they are buying." Because they can't read due to being publicly educated? Or because they can't afford a free Obama phone which they could use to call their insurance agent to ask what's covered?

"And prices .. are decided arbitrarily by hospital CFOs" Yes, insurance companies who actually have to cover the bills and their expert negotiators, are incentivised to buy hospital CFO's large luxury yachts -- good well thought out point there. In fact, doctors and hospitals are complaining about the EXACT OPPOSITE ... that they are being undercut due to databases compiled by insurance companies to know how far down they can push the prices (example: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2012/03/...otiations.html).

Just putting quotation marks around something does NOT constitute an argument against it. Arguing requires more than indignation. For instance, you quote KevinMD's site and disagree that insurance companies act as regional monopolies. Here is what your own linked source says about the subject:

The report found that 83 percent of metropolitan areas have “highly concentrated” commercial health insurance markets. In about half of the nation’s metropolitan areas, at least one health insurer claimed 50 percent or more of the market. In 24 states, the two largest health insurers have a lock on 70 percent or more of the market.

It also goes on about those negotiations with doctors, which in fact proves MY point (that monopolistic insurance is what is hurting the US's healthcare). Basically, they give doctors less and charge patients more, and just take home the difference.

As far as the knowledge part goes, I was referring to the pricing of surgeries and drugs. The simple fact is that consumers do not have the tools to analyze healthcare costs. For instance, see this government link. Absolutely zero price information, just vague descriptions. If you were looking to have surgery, it is hard or impossible to compare the costs at different hospitals. If you could compare them, you'd see the same procedure priced completely differently at different hospitals, without regard to the level of care. See this link, which shows how only 19 hospitals (out of 102 surveyed) could give pricing information, and with those it varied tremendously.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/el...ng-reform.html

I can go on and on. These countries that "rank highly" in healthcare, do not provide adequate healthcare to the elderly. Furthermore, they have no idea how to fix the problem. As the articles point out, with regard to expensive elder care, single payer simply can't afford to provide care to the aged.

The problem is not that countries with good healthcare systems have a monopoly on bad elderly care, as that implies that countries with lower quality health care have better elderly care (specifically, that the US does, which is false). The real problem is that as the better the healthcare is at keeping people alive, the more it will cost; your earlier showed that costs rise as people get older.

I'll also point out again that costs in the US for elderly care are LESS affordable than those in Europe, and that cases of abuse are at least as high (if not higher). Therefore, this is NOT an argument against single payer systems in the US or around the world, because the issue is not one that arises as a consequence of a single payer system and doesn't go away in the absence of those systems.

There was recently an article about how a few of the European countries are moving away from single-payer because it's not maintainable. It's only a matter of time before more start doing the same.

They aren't moving away from single payer systems because it isn't cost effective; they are moving away from it because Europe was especially hard hit by the global recession. The issues are not necessarily related. And moving away from single-payer doesn't mean they prefer the alternative. A $100 pair of boots that last years are a better value than $20 boots that last months, but if you are too poor for the good pair you'll still buy the low cost boots. That is what is happening in Europe now. They recognize that single-payer systems are preferable, but still cannot afford it even if it is more cost effective overall.

[kcshocker11]

I agree CBB, but I travel to Europe alot and dont believe they are moving away. Heathcare in Europe is as they say not a major issue. I hope for the same here

[Kung Wu]

Just putting quotation marks around something does NOT constitute an argument against it. Arguing requires more than indignation.

First of all get over yourself. Your opinions are ranty and robotic, while mine flow like poetic honey. That's not my fault.

For instance, you quote KevinMD's site and disagree that insurance companies act as regional monopolies.

No I didn't. I quoted KevinMD's article to demonstrate how you were DEAD WRONG that prices "are decided arbitrarily by hospital CFO's". The article clearly demonstrates that prices are the result of a negotiation process between insurance companies and the hospitals. And it would appear that insurance companies have the upper hand in keeping prices low, and they are incentivised to do so.

Keep trying to twist other people's words into something they're not though -- it's your MO after all.

"The report found that 83 percent of metropolitan areas have “highly concentrated” commercial health insurance markets. In about half of the nation’s metropolitan areas, at least one health insurer claimed 50 percent or more of the market. In 24 states, the two largest health insurers have a lock on 70 percent or more of the market."

Yes, the health insurance industry doesn't have a lot of competitors per market. That does NOT mean it's dominated by a "monopoly". I know it's a favorite buzz phrase to throw out there by anti-capitalists, but it's flat out wrong.

You know what WOULD fit the definition of a monopoly though? SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. Ack ackk ackk ackk ackk (My Mr. Crabs laugh from Spongebob).

But ... what do you think has caused the limited competition in the insurance market? Could it be government regulations?

The average margin for a health care insurance company in recent time is somewhere around 3.5% (according to my feeble memory -- look it up and correct this for me if you have time because I don't). That's a pretty thin margin, my friend. What entrepreneur wants to enter the game for a 3.5% margin and the risk that comes along with it given all the massive GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in that industry?

There IS competition. Insurers must compete with other insurers and the consumers out there are VERY price sensitive. If another insurer enters with better price points, you can bet employers will make the shift to those companies in a heartbeat. But don't hold your breath -- there's a reason other insurers aren't jumping in the game and it isn't because a monopoly is preventing it.

It also goes on about those negotiations with doctors,

And that was the purpose of my posting it.

Basically, they give doctors less and charge patients more,

You said prices are "decided arbitrarily by hospital CFOs." Now you are back pedaling and implying "the poor hospital getting raked over the coals by private insurance companies". Which is it?

The private insurer is increasing premiums to stay afloat. The reason they have to increase premiums is because there is heavily subsidized (read price controlled) pressure on the hospital. The hospitals are trying desperately to pass those losses from the subsidized consumers over to the private consumers -- because how the hell else are they going to get their expenses covered?

It's the exact same thing that happens with rent controls (borrowing heavily from memory from Sowell's "Basic Economics"): Prior to WWII the housing situation in the US was just fine. Then during WWII government tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist. They enforce price controls to have lower rents with the purpose of helping families find "more" affordable apartments. So what happens?

Teenagers move out at an earlier age, elderly people that normally couldn't afford it move into their own apartment, and so on. Not only that, but groups of people purchase larger apartments than they _should_ be able to afford. So you have a 20 year old kids, widows, and childless couples living in a 3 and 4 bedroom apartments, because the prices are kept artificially low.

What follows? Shortage.

Now families that NEED 3 and 4 bedroom apartments suddenly can't find one. There weren't more people in the population relative to the number of available homes prior to the shortage, and the number of apartments on the market increased the same rate up until the price controls were enacted.

Yet now you have a situation where people that truly need an apartment can't find one. And nobody is building apartments because the cost to build them doesn't justify the rent that they can make because the prices are being artificially held low.

How did this end up correcting itself? Once rent controls were lifted, prices rose to their proper equilibrium and the market corrected itself.

So .... enter medicare and other government interference in the health industry. Price controls cause shortages .. we know that to almost always be true, and guess what. Here it is. People are using medicare/medicaid when they shouldn't be, driving prices up and putting substantial demand on the system that shouldn't be there in the first place. The end result, as always is prices going ever up and shortages (while we haven't seen the shortages hit in the US, they are certainly well known elsewhere and that day is coming here too, as can easily be seen on the GDP percent spend).

There is more to government interference driving prices up than just price controls, there is also the waste problem, but I'm outta time.

Oh and @MoValley John: has given an EXCELLENT example of one unintended consequence on how government interference (price controls) have increased demand on the system: The elderly.

Prior to medicare it was very normal for the elderly to live with their children or other elderly friends -- it was the affordable thing to do. Now? The we just shove the elderly into nursing homes at the tune of many thousands of dollars per month. Once their retirement is completely eaten up, then medicare covers those costs. Ouchie in so many ways.

[MoValley John]

Their talking about nursing homes here

No, they are talking about both hospitals and nursing homes. Government owned and run facilities at that. Furthermore, it is being reported by liberal press, you don't want to see what the conservatives have to say.

I will bolster this by adding that during the Obamacare debates, Obama began to touch on exactly what I am writing. Politics ended the discussion on elder care. Think back, or YouTube Jane Sturm. If we take the politics out of what I'm presenting, it is very easy to see the scope of the problem.

[kcshocker11]

No, they are talking about both hospitals and nursing homes. Government owned and run facilities at that. Furthermore, it is being reported by liberal press, you don't want to see what the conservatives have to say.

I will bolster this by adding that during the Obamacare debates, Obama began to touch on exactly what I am writing. Politics ended the discussion on elder care. Think back, or YouTube Jane Sturm. If we take the politics out of what I'm presenting, it is very easy to see the scope of the problem.

No i believe they are talking about nursing homes

[MoValley John]

No i believe they are talking about nursing homes

Really? Whipps Cross isn't a nursing home, it's a huge teaching hospital.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...d-8782343.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipp...rsity_Hospital

[kcshocker11]

Really? Whipps Cross isn't a nursing home, it's a huge teaching hospital.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/the-london-hospital-workers-who-abused-and-neglected-elderly-patients-on-ward-8782343.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipp...rsity_Hospital

Where is this hospital mentioned in your article about the nursing home care? Ok I see its another article- yes there maybe problems but in that article they are addressing the incidences. If you think were great please watch SICKO! SICKO!

[MoValley John]

How about Worcestershire? Acute trauma hospital, owned by the govt, let a patient starve to death. Not a nursing home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8430361.html

[Kung Wu]

They aren't moving away from single payer systems because it isn't cost effective; they are moving away from it because Europe was especially hard hit by the global recession. ... They recognize that single-payer systems are preferable, but still cannot afford it even if it is more cost effective overall.

Wow, I just finally made it down to this gem of logic. I don't even have to argue with this, just call attention to it and let other shockernetters read it.

You really might consider sitting on your arguments for a day or two and then reread them before you post them. Just an idea.

[MoValley John]

Very first paragraph, KC. It's WHIPPS CROSS HOSPITAL. Not a nursing home. Wiki included to describe hospital. Not a nursing home, but a NHS hospital.

[kcshocker11]

How about Worcestershire? Acute trauma hospital, owned by the govt, let a patient starve to death. Not a nursing home.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8430361.html

Yes an we have bad hospitals here too. And if it werent for medicare and medicaid guess what. Thank God for medicare and medicaid. If you dont like please dont use it when you get old