health care "inflation"?

[SEC=UGA]

Doctors with Family practices are making less than ever, yet the cost of insurance goes up. George Foreman Grill?

 

IMO (I have to start this out with that) a great deal of this is caused by the demographics of the insured. The people most likely to have insurance are 30 to 65. This age group is more prone to illness than the 18 - 29 set. Further, with the aging of our nation, the pools of insured are more heavily weighted on the backside of that age range. Effectively, the 30 somethings ar epaying higher premiums because the old people are becoming afflicted. Then, you don't have the 18-29 age group, who are most often healthy, paying in premiums (and not taking much out of the pool) to offset the consumption of the older set. Therefore, insurance rates skyrocket.

[Ursa Majoris]

IMO (I have to start this out with that) a great deal of this is caused by the demographics of the insured. The people most likely to have insurance are 30 to 65. This age group is more prone to illness than the 18 - 29 set. Further, with the aging of our nation, the pools of insured are more heavily weighted on the backside of that age range. Effectively, the 30 somethings ar epaying higher premiums because the old people are becoming afflicted. Then, you don't have the 18-29 age group, who are most often healthy, paying in premiums (and not taking much out of the pool) to offset the consumption of the older set. Therefore, insurance rates skyrocket.

So you obviously support a health insurance mandate then? Since it would spread the pool and therefore lower costs and all.

[SEC=UGA]

So you obviously support a health insurance mandate then? Since it would spread the pool and therefore lower costs and all.

 

nope. I'm clinging to my god and my guns to drive down the cost of healthcare.

[Square]

So you obviously support a health insurance mandate then? Since it would spread the pool and therefore lower costs and all.

Walked into that one.

[SEC=UGA]

Walked into that one.

 

Nah, not really. I was explaining why health insurance is getting more expensive. You have other severe repercussions from the mandate, most interestingly the fact that people will pay the meager penalties to avoid buying insurance and doctors will have to treat them anyway. You'll have the same problem, perhaps even more of a problem as many people will opt out of paying monthly premiums that they currently pay and pay the meager penalty instead further shrinking the pool from which regular premiums are drawn. This will further drive up premiums.

 

Secondly, you are not going to include the younger people into the pool at full premiums as they can stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Effectively, the parent pays a smaller increased premium with the child as a rider than the individual youngster would pay through their own premium. This further deteriorates the dollars in the pool. You will also see an increase in usage of medical services as every person is insured and there is nothing to bar them from going to the doctor as much as possible, there are not enough doctors or facilities to cover this contingency.

 

Another issue to consider is that some people choose self insure are you going to deny one's right to do so?

 

Other issues to consider came up in the recent court ruling with regard to the HC law, is it within the governments pervue to compel someone to participate in economic activity? I say no.

 

There are too many issues with the individual mandate, issues facing Mass. right now. It is not a good road to go down.

[Clubfoothead]

Another issue to consider is that some people choose self insure are you going to deny one's right to do so?

 

Nobody self insures. You don't have the money.

[Ursa Majoris]

Nah, not really. I was explaining why health insurance is getting more expensive. You have other severe repercussions from the mandate, most interestingly the fact that people will pay the meager penalties to avoid buying insurance and doctors will have to treat them anyway. You'll have the same problem, perhaps even more of a problem as many people will opt out of paying monthly premiums that they currently pay and pay the meager penalty instead further shrinking the pool from which regular premiums are drawn. This will further drive up premiums.

 

Secondly, you are not going to include the younger people into the pool at full premiums as they can stay on their parent's insurance until age 26. Effectively, the parent pays a smaller increased premium with the child as a rider than the individual youngster would pay through their own premium. This further deteriorates the dollars in the pool. You will also see an increase in usage of medical services as every person is insured and there is nothing to bar them from going to the doctor as much as possible, there are not enough doctors or facilities to cover this contingency.

 

Another issue to consider is that some people choose self insure are you going to deny one's right to do so?

 

Other issues to consider came up in the recent court ruling with regard to the HC law, is it within the governments pervue to compel someone to participate in economic activity? I say no.

 

There are too many issues with the individual mandate, issues facing Mass. right now. It is not a good road to go down.

A most excellent argument in favor of nationwide single payer via taxation and be done with the whole stupid thing.

[SEC=UGA]

A most excellent argument in favor of nationwide single payer via taxation and be done with the whole stupid thing.

 

Yeah, that will be run as effectively as medicare, social security, medicaid, etc...

[Ursa Majoris]

Yeah, that will be run as effectively as medicare, social security, medicaid, etc...

You've spent most of this thread supporting the anti-insurance argument and therefore supporting single payer so instead of floundering around ranting against Medicare, give us your position.

 

Is it to abandon Medicare altogether and put seniors on private plans? Because I can just imagine how much those insurers will love the idea of the most illness-prone people in the country suddenly having to be covered by them. Tens of millions of illness-prone people.

[SEC=UGA]

You've spent most of this thread supporting the anti-insurance argument and therefore supporting single payer so instead of floundering around ranting against Medicare, give us your position.

 

Is it to abandon Medicare altogether and put seniors on private plans? Because I can just imagine how much those insurers will love the idea of the most illness-prone people in the country suddenly having to be covered by them. Tens of millions of illness-prone people.

 

You look at it as reasons why we should support single payer, I look at it as the realities of the system. Where we fundamentally diverge in our rationale is that I do not see healthcare as a "right" that all citizens are entitled to. If you don't have insurance or the means to receive medical care then you don't receive it or you depend on charity from others to get the necessary treatment. My stance may be harsh and extremely unpopular, but that is my perspective.

 

I would abandon medicare altogether for people under a certain age. I would also abandon SS all together for those who are below a certain age.

 

If you do get into a single payer system you are going to have rationing of care. It is an unsustainable model given the demographics of this country. Or, in order to make it sustainable you are going to have to severely contract costs of medical care which will decrease the number of practitioners and also overwhelm the system since medical treatment is purportedly readily available to anyone who bothers to show up.

 

At this point you put the government in control, you have them being the moral arbiter of who receives what treatments (this is not a death panel argument as tossed around by many on the right, but rather reality.) Does the 65 year old man who needs a heart transplant receive it or does the 35 year old obese, chain smoking, diabetic get it? Should a 55 year old mother of two receive chemo or should a 8 year old child with cancer receive it.

 

Further, you will create another gigantic government bureaucracy that will be unwieldy and rife with fraud. You will lose thousand of private sector jobs. Costs will go up. I can't think of any good reason for the government to control healthcare through a single payer system that is funded through direct tax deductions.

[Square]

I can't think of any good reason for the government to control healthcare through a single payer system that is funded through direct tax deductions.

Maybe because it works for almost every other industrialized country in some form or another. They pay less and their people out live the average American. I find no math that says the current system is sustainable or that insurance companies are any better at deciding who gets a transplant.

[Ursa Majoris]

Maybe because it works for almost every other industrialized country in some form or another. They pay less and their people out live the average American. I find no math that says the current system is sustainable or that insurance companies are any better at deciding who gets a transplant.

I wonder why we really do treat health care different here compared to the entire rest of the planet? Anything to do with a small bunch of people becoming insanely wealthy, an automatic assumption of American superiority and an endless propaganda drone about socialism, maybe?

[bpwallace49]

I wonder why we really do treat health care different here compared to the entire rest of the planet? Anything to do with a small bunch of people becoming insanely wealthy, an automatic assumption of American superiority and an endless propaganda drone about socialism, maybe?

 

I seem to remember an article that Az posted that implied that the only reason they have such good health care and extended lives is through the American system of innovation that develops medical technology that is utilized by the rest of the world. So they get to piggyback off all the research and development that we do in pharmacuticals, medical devices and technology, and therefore keep their own costs low.

 

So in essence, we are subdizing every other country to have lower medical costs becasue the only place that medical research and breakthroughs can occur is in the United States through the free market system Otherwise their socialiazed medicine would be leeches and lobotomies.

 

It easily could NOT be Az, but I swear he presented this platform. And there is a lot of validity behind it, IMO.

[Ursa Majoris]

I seem to remember an article that Az posted that implied that the only reason they have such good health care and extended lives is through the American system of innovation that develops medical technology that is utilized by the rest of the world. So they get to piggyback off all the research and development that we do in pharmacuticals, medical devices and technology, and therefore keep their own costs low.

 

So in essence, we are subdizing every other country to have lower medical costs becasue the only place that medical research and breakthroughs can occur is in the United States through the free market system Otherwise their socialiazed medicine would be leeches and lobotomies.

 

It easily could NOT be Az, but I swear he presented this platform. And there is a lot of validity behind it, IMO.

I don't think there's much validity in that at all. One of the propaganda knocks on other health services is that they are always using primitive machinery held together with baling wire, so clearly they aren't buying our stuff, right? Yet here we are claiming that they piggyback on our technology. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

[Chavez]

the current scheme is anything BUT "consumer-directed", and that is in many peoples' minds exactly the problem.

 

 

Well, duh - my point is that if you just went "consumer-directed" the currently opaque and byzantine system, you'd have a ridiculous mess.

[Chavez]

.... insurance companies are any better at deciding who gets a transplant.

 

Yeah, I never quite got anyone to answer why "ZOMGDeathPanels!" would be worse than some faceless mid-level exec whose $5000 bonus depends on turning down $x in claims.

[Azazello1313]

I seem to remember an article that Az posted that implied that the only reason they have such good health care and extended lives is through the American system of innovation that develops medical technology that is utilized by the rest of the world. So they get to piggyback off all the research and development that we do in pharmacuticals, medical devices and technology, and therefore keep their own costs low.

 

So in essence, we are subdizing every other country to have lower medical costs becasue the only place that medical research and breakthroughs can occur is in the United States through the free market system Otherwise their socialiazed medicine would be leeches and lobotomies.

 

It easily could NOT be Az, but I swear he presented this platform. And there is a lot of validity behind it, IMO.

 

it sounds like you are referring to this

[Square]

I wonder why we really do treat health care different here compared to the entire rest of the planet? Anything to do with a small bunch of people becoming insanely wealthy, an automatic assumption of American superiority and an endless propaganda drone about socialism, maybe?

Hard to tell. You get crazies like SEC (with all due respect) that think health care shouldn't be a right to US citizens.

 

It kind of baffles me how business minded people can agree that it makes sense to pool resources for defense, commerce, local utilities, but god forbid the private sector have any competition in health care with a government run program. And quite honestly, I'd be fine with the current system IF it worked and did an exceptional job. So far I see no case for it being either A] exceptional when compared to other countries or B] long term financially stable. I don't mind expensive when it comes to health care, but paying more for less is very unamerican IMO.

[wiegie]

At this point you put the government in control, you have them being the moral arbiter of who receives what treatments (this is not a death panel argument as tossed around by many on the right, but rather reality.) Does the 65 year old man who needs a heart transplant receive it or does the 35 year old obese, chain smoking, diabetic get it? Should a 55 year old mother of two receive chemo or should a 8 year old child with cancer receive it.

You are happier that the (amoral) market makes these decisions according to has the most money to spend? Sorry, little girl, but you are ass-out; you should have gotten that paper-route and worked longer hours at your lemonade stand.

[mrip]

What would make more sense is to take the amount of money spent on research, development and production, etc. (all costs on a per person in the system basis) during 1960, adjust it for inflation but otherwise keep it the same while keeping profits flat, and see what advances would be made between 1960 and 2011. Then, ask people if they wanted to spend 10k on current 2011 tech, or "cost controlled" 2011 tech at cost controlled prices. Too bad that's impossible, and still doesn't make much sense because of the massive number of variables and costs you'd need to track.

 

This is getting too long, but my basic point is that the OP argument strongly suggests that the increase in cost is "worth it" when it's not at all clear that it is. He also uses a completely inadequate test "prove" his point.

Edited June 21, 2011 by mrip

[bpwallace49]

Man robs bank to get medical care in jail

By Zachary Roth

Share

retweet

EmailPrint..By Zachary Roth zachary Roth – Tue Jun 21, 10:36 am ET

 

 

Some people who need medical care but can't afford it go to the emergency room. Others just hope they'll get better. James Richard Verone robbed a bank.

 

Earlier this month, Verone (pictured), a 59-year-old convenience store clerk, walked into a Gaston, N.C., bank and handed the cashier a note demanding $1 and medical attention. Then he waited calmly for police to show up.

 

He's now in jail and has an appointment with a doctor this week.

 

Verone's problems started when he lost the job he'd held for 17 years as a Coca Cola deliveryman, amid the economic downturn. He found new work driving a truck, but it didn't last. Eventually, he took a part-time position at the convenience store.

 

But Verone's body wasn't up to it. The bending and lifting made his back ache. He had problems with his left foot, making him limp. He also suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome and arthritis.

 

Then he noticed a protrusion on his chest. "The pain was beyond the tolerance that I could accept," Verone told the Gaston Gazette. "I kind of hit a brick wall with everything."

 

Verone knew he needed help--and he didn't want to be a burden on his sister and brothers. He applied for food stamps, but they weren't enough either.

 

So he hatched a plan. On June 9, he woke up, showered, ironed his shirt. He mailed a letter to the Gazette, listing the return address as the Gaston County Jail.

 

"When you receive this a bank robbery will have been committed by me," Verone wrote in the letter. "This robbery is being committed by me for one dollar. I am of sound mind but not so much sound body."

 

Then Verone hailed a cab to take him to the RBC Bank. Inside, he handed the teller his $1 robbery demand.

 

"I didn't have any fears," said Verone. "I told the teller that I would sit over here and wait for police."

 

The teller was so frightened that she had to be taken to the hospital to be checked out. Verone, meanwhile, was taken to jail, just as he'd planned it.

 

Because he only asked for $1, Verone was charged with larceny, not bank robbery. But he said that if his punishment isn't severe enough, he plans to tell the judge that he'll do it again. His $100,000 bond has been reduced to $2,000, but he says he doesn't plan to pay it.

 

In jail, Verone said he skips dinner to avoid too much contact with the other inmates. He's already seen some nurses and is scheduled to see a doctor on Friday. He said he's hoping to receive back and foot surgery, and get the protrusion on his chest treated. Then he plans to spend a few years in jail, before getting out in time to collect Social Security and move to the beach.

 

Verone also presented the view that if the United States had a health-care system which offered people more government support, he wouldn't have had to make the choice he did.

 

"If you don't have your health you don't have anything," Verone said.

 

The Affordable Care Act, President Obama's health-care overhaul passed by Congress last year, was designed to make it easier for Americans in situations like Verone's to get health insurance. But most of its provisions don't go into effect until 2014.

 

As it is, Verone said he thinks he chose the best of a bunch of bad options. "I picked jail."