Message 108 of 1545

healthcare reform-smoke and mirrors

You go to see your doctor, he sends you to a specialist because he is afraid of making a mistake. You end up paying for all these additional tests. If we reformed tort law and lowered the premiums for malpractice insurance, maybe our doctors wouldn't be afraid to make a diagnosis on their own without all the additional specialised tests.
New drugs are prescribed a year or two earlier in America than Europe and they pay 50% more for the same drugs i.e. the rest of the world gets a free ride while America subsidises the cost of R&D for the drug companies.
The central problem is that most Americans get their health insurance through their employers that can buy health insurance with pretax dollars while individuals can't. The doctors get payed for the number of tests they do and the insurance company passes along the cost to the employer in the form of higher premiums, who will pass them along to workers in the form of lower wages. The proportion of the cost of employer provided health care insurance shouldered by employees is almost 100%. Last year, employer provided health insurance reduced wages by 7.9%.i.e the stagnation of middle-class incomes in recent years.
A government plan could wipe out a lot of private insurers since unlike a private insurer, it would not have to make provision for future liability, it could simply stick the bill on future taxpayers. Medicare, has unfunded liabilities of $36 trillion.
Only 4% of American doctors have a fully functional electronic medical-records system, Obama wants to rectify that and alleviate having to redo tests, a step in the right direction.
I usually pride myself on being able to understand economic principles; healthcare was somewhat a mystery to me. I concentrated and wrote down all my thoughts here.
Seems to me we should fix what we already have rather than trying to redesign the whole thing.
tjbr52's profile
Replies 1 - 10 of 29
If I knew how to draw a diagram I would. Seems we have a bunch of convoluted lines intersecting and skewing off in parallel directions hitting a barrier with half going one way and half going the other to be hinged on a fulcrum whereby they'd be slung 180 degrees into a gravitational field slung off in all directions to eventually be munched by a mulcher out of which would spew wood chips?

Yeah... let's fix the what we have.
JoyBoy55's profile

5 months ago
I pay a lot of money for my healthcare and it goes way every year...my income does not go up as much or this year it will not be going up at all. My health care insurance went up by $50.00 a month and that is a lot for me...we Americans are lame if we think what we have is fair or enlightened. I lived under National Health in England...we are way behind the times
Pamela4's profile

5 months ago
There was a study that said we pay 85% of healthcare expenses in the last 18 months of our lives. Wasn't there something I heard in the Obama plan about the older you get the less they want to pay out, like our value of life is less as we grow older.
Next thing they will be saying is a bullet only costs a dollar.
tjbr52's profile

5 months ago
well, tjbr, in regards to my life, I simply do not have the money to live to grow real old..plain and simple and it was not poor planning that makes it so...it was a divorce ...I lived very nicely for the 24 years I was married....he had a good lawyer and I did not.....simple really..he lives in our home and I do not....and the list goes on.....I am sure that there are many people just like me.....
Pamela4's profile

5 months ago
A bullet, tj, buying in bulk like a government might do with life saving drugs, might only cost 2 cents. The powder might cost 3 cents. A primer 1 cent and a casing .1 of a cent. Labor to load might cost 1 cent. Total cost = 7.1 cents for a .308 caliber military issue M60 ammunition. Beats the shit out of keeping us old folk alive ya reckon? Of course the cost would lessen with the diminuation of the caliber and powder charge. A .223 might only cost around 5 cents. If bought in bulk perhaps a .22 Long Rifle might only cost less than 1 cent per shot.

Though in danger I realize of being deleted you are a sick puppy alex/tj/Mac etc.
JoyBoy55's profile

5 months ago
It's just looking at what the powers that be say.
I made this post as a suggestion to what you think.
Your answer JoyBoy was like a metaphor.
If we have nationalised healthcare, the older you get the less you are worth and the less the system will pay to keep you alive. It's economics, you know? There's nothing there against the aged they just know that in the last 18 months of your life you spend 85% of what you normally would as an adult.
Shit, make the retirement age 75, that will save billions. Then when do people get a chance to enjoy their lives? I retired at 38, I did everything and went everywhere I ever wanted to until I got bored with it all. I did things when I was young that no old rich folgy can do now. Tell me who got it right?
Healthcare to work has to negate the elderly and that's bull shit
tjbr52's profile

5 months ago
Your idea that research and development costs cause medicine prices to soar is naive, my friend. What drives up the costs of medication more is what pharmaceutical companies spend on the promotion of drugs.
view link

You say…,”The central problem is that most Americans get their health insurance through their employers”.
The truth is Americans getting coverage from an employer has been steadily declining.
view link

Medical insurance is considered a ‘benefit in kind’ as it pertains to a person’s pay. It is illegal for an employer to reduce a person’s pay in order for an employer to pay for employer provided health insurance. Your statement that ‘Last year, employer provided health insurance reduced wages by 7.9%.i.e the stagnation of middle-class’ is simply not true. Health insurance is considered ‘payment in kind’. Also untrue is your statement…
“The proportion of the cost of employer provided health care insurance shouldered by employees is almost 100%.” This statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Oddly enough, I saw my doctor the other day and picked up a copy of The Economist off the table. I would almost be willing to bet that your opinions come from an article in that paper.
view link

The insurance industry has been running amok for a long time now. There is this call by the GOP for less government while at the same time saying that government needs to intercede and stop corporations from bilking Americans. You can’t have it both ways. What we have is a system of health care that will bankrupt our government if our health care system is not altered posthaste. We already have a government run health care system that has been in place for a very long time. To hear people say they don’t want one is asinine because people have been supporting it for as long as they have paid their taxes to do so. We need to expand it so that all people are covered because, in the long run, all people paying into it will make the system pay for itself. Insurance companies have little competition so there is no reason for them to reduce the price of their coverage.
trippin's profile

5 months ago
AZsunflower's profile

5 months ago
That says it all, my friend.
trippin's profile

5 months ago
Trippin, you are reading The Economist, good for you.
Just as Charles is starting to read The Wall Street Journal, good for him.
Now whether you both accept either publication as being non biased that's another issue.
Keep reading
TJ
tjbr52's profile

5 months ago
Replies 1 - 10 of 29