Health
-
Oakman wrote:
In the U.S. rationing is done by employment, secondarily by gate-keeping GPs.
you're confusing insurance with care with HMOs, three different considerations. most, but not all employers offer health insurance - aka., group insurance. gate-keeping GPs are only a part of the HMO (health maintenance organization)model. This model was designed on the premise that if access to a general practicioner were relatively inexpensive then overall healthcare costs would be lower because you'd be maintaining health instead of curing disease. GPs associated with HMOs are paid on the basis of something called, "capitation" or $XX per enrolled life. The $XX amount is relatively low on the assumption that not all will make use of the service. the flip side of that is if you don't make regular use then you'll be treating disease after all. GPs in this scenario are in fact gate-keepers in that you need their recommendation in order to see a specialist. That can be difficult / easy depending on the GP and/or the specific HMO. Health insurance, whether employer based or individually purchased, operates differently - there is no gate-keeper (see my note below). If you're ill, then you get treatment and it is covered based on the terms of your contract. Why do I mention terms of your contract? I do because contracts differ, some conditions may be covered (most if not all legitimate health conditions are covered to some extent in every contract - see my note below). What might not be covered? The answer is, for example, conditions you think should but are not because they're largely cosmetic - breast reduction is one such example. So why do people have trouble with health insurance? because they want something for nothing. Insurance will not cover pre-existing conditions, most plans will not cover a pre-existing condition for 1 to 2 years after you buy into a plan. That is unless you're covered by the Health Insurance Portability Act, aka., HIPA. - this would take an extraordinarily long explanaiton, I'll do it if you really need it. The essense of this latter subject is, if you've gone through life thinking it more fun to buy spinners for your lime green Pontiac classic than it is to pay for health insurance, then discover you've a medical condition that is costly and try to buy insurance to cover it, you're shit out of luck as you should be. A health insurance comapany will no more issue you a contract if you're sick but never though
I hope you'll remember that I have pissed off our Canadian regs more'n once by expressing a lack of respect for their "free" healthcare system, more'n once, when I say, flatly, that there is a health-care crisis in this country. I appreciate your input on the difference between straight insurance and HMOs though my experience has been that the difference is shrinking as you pointed out in your addendum. I am sure that you can indeed buy a policy that will cover any reasonable injury or illness in full and without termination because you develop a chronic illness. I know that is what we the taxpayers provide for everyone in Congress - I believe we continue providing it for them even after they leave, though I'm not positive of that. And there's not a staunch conservative in either house that doesn't avail himherself of this socialistic system. However, I believe you are assuming that the average wage in this country stretches far further than it does. There are plenty of families in this country that are strapped out - their real wages haven't gone up in 8 years, though their real costs have. They've got insurance in many cases, but it's a shithole policy, like the one my brother-in-law provides his employees but it's costs those employers an arm and a leg (my b-i-l is paying 1,000 @ month for one lady, because she's not young. He could fire her of course, and there are plenty of companies that do that. And while Cobra might cover her for 18 months, at her age, she isn't likely to get another job. So, since he's a human being, he pays - and pays - and pays. And neither she, nor he buys spinners for a GTO. The crisis is simple to define, I think: healthcare costs too fucking much. Thats the fault of outrageous malpractice suits and class action suits that benefit noone but the lawyers. It's the fault of the 20 million illegals who get good care and then waltz out of the hospital leaving you and me to be stuck with the bill. It's the fault of insurance companies that have made insurance so complicated that most doctors have at least one person on staff full-time to do nothing but argue with insurance companies. It's the fault of doctors who consider making half a mil a year chicken feed. It boils down to the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed totally out of proportion to the cost of most other things and way beyond the rate of inflation. And it has created a crisis.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing f
-
I think the reverse is true - insurance costs too much BECAUSE it's been made part of a wage package, and employers have paid it. Example : in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference and people pay what they always did, plus what they pay in the cost of the rebate. The rebate is going away now, and prices will not drop.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference
I've watched the same thing happen in this country with higher education. The more support offered to students by the Government, the higher tuition climbs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference
I've watched the same thing happen in this country with higher education. The more support offered to students by the Government, the higher tuition climbs.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Any system that requires people to pay up front, is open to these sort of issues. I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Because, it's only the poor who suffer, so who cares, right ?
Unfortunately, no. As I just pointed out, 60% of the people in the U.S. who declare bankruptcy do so because they had a medical emergency that their insurance didn't handle.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Sure - I was being flippant ( obviously ). The trouble is probably that most people don't have that medical emergency and so it's someone else's problem.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
So paying for health care is not economically sustainable, except that if people pay their own costs some charitable organization will appear to pay the rest? I haven't heard of organizations like this; can you link to a couple?
Thats the way it worked in the past, quite well in fact. It is far less possible to do the same thing today because of the artificial explosion in health care costs created by the government.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If you want some [profit-motivated business man] deciding that you or your children should die so that some one else can live based upon some factor other than your ability to pay, than fine. I don't .
Did you write that correctly? A profit motivated business man would decide based on ability to pay, wouldn't he? I prefer to care for my own needs by my own ability, that is what freedom is. The more I am dependent upon a government bureaucrat, the less free I am.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
I prefer the bureaucrat because they're not motivated by profit.
Than what the hell is he motivated by? If he is willing to do this for free, why the hell does he need to work for the government? What is the difference between this and the same guy working for a charity except that he is, in fact, living off of my dime?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Oh, so you already realized that if bureaucrats aren't making those decisions then companies are? I've already provided statistics showing that the bureaucratic Canadian system is less expensive, so it's not true that companies will keep costs down. Well, they might keep costs down but they'll also keep profits up and so total costs are higher.
The harse economic reality of the frailty of the human body is unavoidable, it will be the same regardless of what system you implement. Your system is not less expensive. It is more expensive. Any statistics that suggest otherwise are cooking the books somewhere. Why the hell can Canada no longer field an Army worthy of the name? It can't because of its growing social safty net. But you are correct that insurance company profits are profits that do not, in fact, contribute to any one's actual health care. If all healh care profits were in the medical industry alone, the overall costs would be a small fraction of what they
Stan Shannon wrote:
bullsh*t. There is no reason at all that there could not be fair and open competition for privately owned emergency care services.
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
- F
-
I think the reverse is true - insurance costs too much BECAUSE it's been made part of a wage package, and employers have paid it. Example : in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference and people pay what they always did, plus what they pay in the cost of the rebate. The rebate is going away now, and prices will not drop.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
I hadn't considered that, but it makes sense. Hmm... Now I have crap to think about. :laugh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
bullsh*t. There is no reason at all that there could not be fair and open competition for privately owned emergency care services.
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
What about the thousands of other medical emergencies that us humans tend to suffer from? Could almost be a full time job just arranging cover in their likely or unlikely occurrence(s). I worry about you Stan, and your ideas.
modified on Saturday, June 6, 2009 8:22 AM
-
Any system that requires people to pay up front, is open to these sort of issues. I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
Well, we may have figured out the worst of both worlds. The Diploma Factories make their money up front, but the students who have, in many cases, been subsidized by government-backed loans, can end up starting their professional careeras a couple of hundred thoudsand (US) doallrs in debt. I went to a first class private university in Boston where living hasn't ever been cheap. My entire first year's tuition was just over $1,000. Room, board, books, etc. came to just over another thousand. Obviously those were back when we were on the gold standard and inflation was what happened to balloons. That's why, now, the cost of room, board, etc. are ten times higher - to 11,000, U$. However, tuition - even though the college year has shrunk by six weeks from what it was when I went there is now thirty-frackin-seven times what it was then to $38,500.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Nope, a profit-motivated business man is going to decide to pay your medical costs based on what makes the highest profit. Not giving you the money means more profit, which means denying care.
Huh? What do you mean 'not giving me the money'? What if I already have the money?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You know what, I totally agree. I don't want to depend on the government. I know the government wastes money and has too much bureaucracy. When it comes to medical care, I also don't want to depend on the business man because his profit comes first.
Absolutely. We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
The bureaucrat is motivated by getting paid their salary. They follow the rules so they can keep their jobs. If the rules say, "pay medical bills for car accident victims" then the bureaucrat does. The business man is motivated by profit, so if they can save money and make more profit by not paying my medical bills, then they will. That's why I trust the bureaucrat more in this case.
The bureaucrat is either not going to be motivated at all, probably will not be fired regardless of how poorly he does his job, or he is going to motivated by a political agenda which may or may not be to your disadvantage, or is simply going to be some kind of power mad jackass who likes to fuck with you. You know, pretty much the same kind of people you met at the post office.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Before Britain had its National Health Service, those who could afford medical treatments paid handsomely for it. Those who couldn't, and they were the overwhelming majority, suffered horrendous pain and injuries that occasioned their earlier than necessary deaths. Charity did help some but those it did help were just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
You mean, insurance? I thought that would be outlawed under your plan?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
You mean, insurance? I thought that would be outlawed under your plan?
Insurance would not be necessary. Emergency services could be included as part of a subscription plan to a local doctor's clinic or hospital. And, since your next comment is going to be something along the lines of "well, thats just the same thing as insurance..." my response is: "No it isn't". A subscription service to a doctor's clinic would be no different than a subscription service to your internet provider. They seem to be able to deal with managing the revenue stream without need for some kind of massive secondary industry to do it for them.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
What about the thousands of other medical emergencies that us humans tend to suffer from? Could almost be a full time job just arranging cover in their likely or unlikely occurrence(s). I worry about you Stan, and your ideas.
modified on Saturday, June 6, 2009 8:22 AM
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What about the thousands of other medical emergencies that us humans tend to suffer from? Could almost be a full time job just arranging cover in their likely or unlikely occurrence(s).
What about them? They aren't going to go away just because you give more power to the government.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I worry about you Stan, and your ideas.
Of course, because my ideas are predicated upon proven methods of successfully doing things important to the maintainance of human civilization, and yours have failed miserably every single time they've ever been tried, and, in fact, fail precisely and predictably to the same extent that they are most faithfully implemented.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Before Britain had its National Health Service, those who could afford medical treatments paid handsomely for it. Those who couldn't, and they were the overwhelming majority, suffered horrendous pain and injuries that occasioned their earlier than necessary deaths. Charity did help some but those it did help were just the tip of the iceberg.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Before Britain had its National Health Service, those who could afford medical treatments paid handsomely for it. Those who couldn't, and they were the overwhelming majority, suffered horrendous pain and injuries that occasioned their earlier than necessary deaths
Not true. That myth was fabricated for you by the collectivists who want to control your life.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Any system that requires people to pay up front, is open to these sort of issues. I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
Any system that requires people to pay up front, is open to these sort of issues. I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
You guys are out of your minds. The reason both health care and educational costs increase is precisely because of government involvement. Both are increasing far more rapidly than inflation in the general economy, and the gold standard or lack thereof is insufficient to account for that. When government artificially makes more money available to pay for something, that something is now more valuable simply because more money is available to pay for it. The government could set aside a hundred trillion dollars to pay for health care and education, and that is exactly what health care and education would be worth in the general economy - a hundred trillion dollars (the artificial economics), plus what ever you were paying before they made that money available (the real economics). Australia is absolutely no different than the US, you are simply paying more in taxes or you are given reduced options by the government to control costs. There is no way around the simple brutal reality of economics.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
You mean, insurance? I thought that would be outlawed under your plan?
Insurance would not be necessary. Emergency services could be included as part of a subscription plan to a local doctor's clinic or hospital. And, since your next comment is going to be something along the lines of "well, thats just the same thing as insurance..." my response is: "No it isn't". A subscription service to a doctor's clinic would be no different than a subscription service to your internet provider. They seem to be able to deal with managing the revenue stream without need for some kind of massive secondary industry to do it for them.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Insurance would not be necessary. Emergency services could be included as part of a subscription plan to a local doctor's clinic or hospital.
So if I travel a lot, because insurance is outlawed, I need to get subscriptions to every hospital in every city I'm going to visit? (Hint: most truly emergent conditions preclude flying back home). Hell, if I live in a big city (which you obviously don't) and travel around the city will I need to manage my individual subscription coverage to every hospital in the city (since, again, group insurance isn't allowed) so that I don't need to be transported an hour away during my sudden cardiac arrest? Yeah, sounds really practical. :rolleyes:
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Insurance would not be necessary. Emergency services could be included as part of a subscription plan to a local doctor's clinic or hospital.
So if I travel a lot, because insurance is outlawed, I need to get subscriptions to every hospital in every city I'm going to visit? (Hint: most truly emergent conditions preclude flying back home). Hell, if I live in a big city (which you obviously don't) and travel around the city will I need to manage my individual subscription coverage to every hospital in the city (since, again, group insurance isn't allowed) so that I don't need to be transported an hour away during my sudden cardiac arrest? Yeah, sounds really practical. :rolleyes:
- F
Well, the first thing that occurs to me is that if you've got all this money to be doing all this traveling about, than you certainly have enough to be paying for your own damned health care. You certainly aren't some destitute homeless person. What you are really saying now is that you want me to pay for your health care so you can have nice fancy vacations. If you wish to travel, than part of your travel expense plan should be having a fund of your own money set aside to pay for whatever accidents might occur. Otherwise, stay the fuck at home or take your chances.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Well, the first thing that occurs to me is that if you've got all this money to be doing all this traveling about, than you certainly have enough to be paying for your own damned health care. You certainly aren't some destitute homeless person. What you are really saying now is that you want me to pay for your health care so you can have nice fancy vacations. If you wish to travel, than part of your travel expense plan should be having a fund of your own money set aside to pay for whatever accidents might occur. Otherwise, stay the fuck at home or take your chances.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, the first thing that occurs to me is that if you've got all this money to be doing all this traveling about
It's for my job. I'm an independent contractor. In a free market, I would like to pay someone to manage my health insurance in multiple cities, but I can't, because Stan outlawed insurance in a misguided belief that modern urban living can really be just like "Green Acres" if enough people are forced to do it.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Otherwise, stay the f*** at home or take your chances
Good advice from someone who sounds like he hasn't needed to leave his hometown since 1971 or so. :rolleyes:
- F
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Any system that requires people to pay up front, is open to these sort of issues. I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
You guys are out of your minds. The reason both health care and educational costs increase is precisely because of government involvement. Both are increasing far more rapidly than inflation in the general economy, and the gold standard or lack thereof is insufficient to account for that. When government artificially makes more money available to pay for something, that something is now more valuable simply because more money is available to pay for it. The government could set aside a hundred trillion dollars to pay for health care and education, and that is exactly what health care and education would be worth in the general economy - a hundred trillion dollars (the artificial economics), plus what ever you were paying before they made that money available (the real economics). Australia is absolutely no different than the US, you are simply paying more in taxes or you are given reduced options by the government to control costs. There is no way around the simple brutal reality of economics.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The reason both health care and educational costs increase is precisely because of government involvement.
So, my government is heavily involved in health care costs here, because of Medicare. But, the cost of going to the doctor here is INCREDIBLY cheaper than the US.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The reason both health care and educational costs increase is precisely because of government involvement.
So, my government is heavily involved in health care costs here, because of Medicare. But, the cost of going to the doctor here is INCREDIBLY cheaper than the US.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, the cost of going to the doctor here is INCREDIBLY cheaper than the US.
No, it isn't.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.