100 replies to this topic

[hblask]

http://www.cato.org/...?podcast_id=753

[nutzbuster]

hblask, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 7:58 AM, said:

http://www.cato.org/...?podcast_id=753

Awesome find Henry. scary.

[DonkSlayer]

More people with adequate healthcare > less people with adequate healthcare::shrug::I don't agree with all facets of Obama's plan, including the intense regulation of private plans, but something needs to change. In fact, I'm starting to think that if 45 million + americans will be on some sort of government-run plan, it might be better for the rest of us to have our options regulated in a way that keeps us using private plans instead of running to a cheaper, better gov alternative (not saying it will be cheaper or better, j/s I see a possible use for the regulation).

[Jeepster80125]

DonkSlayer, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 4:13 PM, said:

More people with adequate healthcare > less people with adequate healthcare::shrug::I don't agree with all facets of Obama's plan, including the intense regulation of private plans, but something needs to change. In fact, I'm starting to think that if 45 million + americans will be on some sort of government-run plan, it might be better for the rest of us to have our options regulated in a way that keeps us using private plans instead of running to a cheaper, better gov alternative (not saying it will be cheaper or better, j/s I see a possible use for the regulation).

Unfortunately, the ignorance of the average american with regards to healthcare is appalling.First of all, the number of 45 million uninsureds is retardedly high, and completely taken out of context. For instance, people in between jobs are counted in this amount, as well as the people who CHOOSE not to purchase insurance and roll the dice. Our healthcare is 1/7th of our economy. Look at people's problems with other gov't run programs, welfare, medicare and medicaid are some examples. And they're not exactly shining beacons of well run gov't programs. People don't really want the gov't running healthcare.Health Insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive. Until costs are reigned in, no alternatives will be viable.I was going to make a new thread regarding healthcare and this election, I'm still putting notes together. I'll probably just post it here.Without getting into specifics, neither candidate's plan addresses the most important part, which is cost. I believe Obama's plan is hugely expensive and nearly impossible to implement and obama's plan has no enforcement provisions. McCain wants to provide tax credits to help people move into the individual market. McCain has a problem with employer sponsored health plans. He feels that individuals are put at a disadvantage, so he just wants to even the playing field. Again, he doesn't address how things will get paid for.Nice post Henry.

[DonkSlayer]

[quote name='Jeepster80125' post='2830778' date='Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 1:38 PM']First of all, the number of 45 million uninsureds is retardedly high, and completely taken out of context. For instance, people in between jobs are counted in this amount, as well as the people who CHOOSE not to purchase insurance and roll the dice.[/quote]In between jobs matters significantly. Have you seen the prices for COBRA and other interim health insurance plans? Ridiculously high, with very high deductibles. You're also likely looking at a 60-day waiting period after you start a new job.Can you blame the insurance companies? No way. I work in insurance (although not health insurance) and of course the companies are going to do things like waiting periods so you don't just hire onto a job with better benefits because you're already sick or very hurt. But, the insurance companies are protecting themselves because of their self-interest, not the patient's. [quote]Our healthcare is 1/7th of our economy. Look at people's problems with other gov't run programs, welfare, medicare and medicaid are some examples. And they're not exactly shining beacons of well run gov't programs. People don't really want the gov't running healthcare.[/quote]You're right. But 1. poor management is a different issue that CAN be solved and 2. people who benefit from govt programs would rather have poor programs than no program.[/quote]I anticipate your post on healthcare for further discussion.

[JustDoIt]

hblask, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 6:58 AM, said:

http://www.cato.org/...?podcast_id=753

ScaryMcCain has a ton of softballs to hit and he refuses to swing.

[hblask]

DonkSlayer, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

In between jobs matters significantly. Have you seen the prices for COBRA and other interim health insurance plans? Ridiculously high, with very high deductibles. You're also likely looking at a 60-day waiting period after you start a new job.

I'm assuming you realize that healthcare costs the same whether via COBRA or employer-provided, but this post implies otherwise. It's the same cost no matter who writes the check.

Quote

You're right. But 1. poor management is a different issue that CAN be solved

In theory, but we have a couple hundred years of political history that says otherwise. Sure, if a dictator went in and wrote a very specific plan it would be better than what comes out of congress. But the reality is that we are stuck with is lobbyists buying and selling congress for the benefit of specific industries. When you put our economy up for bids (which is what government-run healthcare is doing), the rich will win the auction every time, and the rest of us will suffer.

Quote

2. people who benefit from govt programs would rather have poor programs than no program.

Reworded: People who get something for nothing would rather have that than nothing for nothing. This is not surprising. The more interesting question is whether this is a viable long-term solution.

[hblask]

JustDoIt, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

McCain has a ton of softballs to hit and he refuses to swing.

I think the reason he won't swing is because it is too easy to look up his record, and "smaller government" is not a word that pops into mind. A person with no principles cannot criticize his opponent for lacking principles and get away with it. But yeah, a good candidate with an understanding of economics should be able to trounce Obama and his economic illiteracy.

[nutzbuster]

If the government gets control of and starts running our health care it's game over, especially when it seems clear that they have no clue what it will be, how it will run or how they will pay for it SPECIFICALLY. Show me the details?Going forward without having the details is as reckless as starting a war without an idea of how to win or exit strategy. Sound familiar?I'm not saying that is exactly what happened in Iraq, but the line of thinking correlates directly to a government run health care system. If it happens, bend the f*ck over folks. Obama has no idea how expensive this will be or how to fund it. McCain's plan isn't any more comforting but I'll take his over just throwing the whole thing to the socialist wolves new Democrats.It'll take Sooooooo much money to run this...so much potential corruption and raping of your wallet to pay for it all.And health care is a RIGHT? WTF? Love that line of thinking. What's next? a car is a right? A house? Free college??? WTF PEOPLE!?!!???I don't want to live under socialism, but that sure seems the be the direction we are heading. I served for freedom, the constitution, not this shit.This really scares the crap out of me. Hope I am just over reacting...

[hblask]

nutzbuster, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 1:05 PM, said:

<This really scares the crap out of me. Hope I am just over reacting...

I hope so, too. Adding an FDR-esque program into a weakening economy.... well, it'd give the same results we got from FDR. A decade of recession is a pretty high price to pay for "free" healthcare.A government takeover of healthcare in the US is the biggest threat to this nation's future right now -- way higher than terrorists.

[Jeepster80125]

DonkSlayer, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 5:45 PM, said:

In between jobs matters significantly. Have you seen the prices for COBRA and other interim health insurance plans? Ridiculously high, with very high deductibles. You're also likely looking at a 60-day waiting period after you start a new job.Can you blame the insurance companies? No way. I work in insurance (although not health insurance) and of course the companies are going to do things like waiting periods so you don't just hire onto a job with better benefits because you're already sick or very hurt. But, the insurance companies are protecting themselves because of their self-interest, not the patient's. You're right. But 1. poor management is a different issue that CAN be solved and 2. people who benefit from govt programs would rather have poor programs than no program.I anticipate your post on healthcare for further discussion.

Like Henry said, COBRA premiums aren't more expensive than regular premiums. It's always more expensive for the employee since the employer contribution goes away once that employee leaves that job and enrolls with COBRA. The plan deductibles don't go up either, it's the same plan as before.Waiting periods are determined by the employer group, not the insurance company. My clients waiting periods vary from no wait to six months for high turnover industries. Are you aware that insurance companies generally only profit 3% on the dollar? That's not very much. Insurance companies need to do anything and everything they can to remain viable.Again, we don't need the gov't to run our healthcare. There is health insurance out there for people who want to pay for it. I don't believe we need universal coverage, our free market system will run just fine if we can figure out a way to control costs.As far as your comment that poor management in gov't run programs can be solved. How long have these programs been in place? How long has this been an issue? Forever? What do you propose to manage these huge government programs without abuse? You really think we need another monster program? Why?

[Jeepster80125]

Also, just saw commentary on Obama's healthcare stuff from last night.-The most depressing part of the night for me was watching CNN’s real-time reaction from undecided Ohio voters. When Obama promised health care for everyone, promised that you could also keep your employer-sponsored health-care, promised to do all of this and bring health care costs down (he really must be Jesus), and capped it all off with a pledge to maintain the current system of employer-sponsored health care, his ratings were off the charts. The Ohio group gave McCain his strongest marks when he promised to buy up all the troubled mortgages. Is there any way to pull off this "democracy" thing without using actual voters?-Note to Obama: It’s great soundbite to say everyone has a "right" to health care. But there is no "right" that can only be recognized by forcing someone else to give up time, labor, and resources.Scary stuff.

[85suited]

The Government can not get involved with anything without screwing it up or over spending... The last thing I want is for them to handle my health care

[Mercury69]

Forgive me for thinking of this and I have no research or links or anything and my terminology is probably inaccurate. Consider it a topic for discussion only:Maybe Health Insurance companies should be Not For Profit NGO's? I think it's important to note this, simply because these companies probably are making huge piles of money. There's no way in hell these companies could operate without a huge margin of cash available for scams and claims payouts, etc. When a company's bottom line is making a profit and laws allow for a wide array of claim denials and their stock is publically trading and the industry is the Nation's Health, isn't there some kind of conflict of interest?

[hblask]

Mercury69, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 2:24 PM, said:

Forgive me for thinking of this and I have no research or links or anything and my terminology is probably inaccurate. Consider it a topic for discussion only:<br /><br />Maybe Health Insurance companies should be Not For Profit NGO's? I think it's important to note this, simply because these companies probably are making huge piles of money. There's no way in hell these companies could operate without a huge margin of cash available for scams and claims payouts, etc. When a company's bottom line is making a profit and laws allow for a wide array of claim denials and their stock is publically trading and the industry is the Nation's Health, isn't there some kind of conflict of interest?

As Jeepster pointed out, their ROI is already only 3%, which is incredibly low for most industries (I think grocery stores are in that same range, but most are WAY higher than that). So I don't think a few percentage points would make much difference. But removing that slim margin would make them want to cut costs even MORE, right? It's a bigger incentive to not pay for treatment. On that basis alone, it seems like a step in the wrong direction.

[rcgs59]

you guys amaze me. It works In Canada, Britian, France, and CubaNot to mention many other countriesI worked as a nurse in texas for 2 years and hated it so much as soon as my contract ended I came home. It wasn't Texas or the US it was the Health care system that I hated.Your system was disgusting, having to send people who where not insured by taxi to another hospital before they got the care they needed. Even if you were insured doesn't mean that you always got great care cause of the loop holes. I seen too many people who where disappointed because they thought they were covered by there plan only to find out that they were shafted in the end. If you didn't have money so much for the care you got. To me that's not a great system. At least here it is an equal system. Everyone gets treated does not matter what how rich or poor you are. It goes by the seriousness of the illness. It also makes the doctors and hospitals more accountable and responsible for there care to receive funding from the goverment. Accredication is very tuff process for hospitals to endure to get there funding and to keep it up. They also check that the doctors don't over bill, so the system here works.look at the excuetives of drug companies and insurance com. they get paid way too much lol,

[Mercury69]

hblask, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 3:28 PM, said:

As Jeepster pointed out, their ROI is already only 3%, which is incredibly low for most industries (I think grocery stores are in that same range, but most are WAY higher than that). So I don't think a few percentage points would make much difference. But removing that slim margin would make them want to cut costs even MORE, right? It's a bigger incentive to not pay for treatment. On that basis alone, it seems like a step in the wrong direction.

3%??? Maybe Health Insurance employees, esp executives, are being paid too much?

[Jeepster80125]

Mercury69, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 7:24 PM, said:

Forgive me for thinking of this and I have no research or links or anything and my terminology is probably inaccurate. Consider it a topic for discussion only:Maybe Health Insurance companies should be Not For Profit NGO's? I think it's important to note this, simply because these companies probably are making huge piles of money. There's no way in hell these companies could operate without a huge margin of cash available for scams and claims payouts, etc. When a company's bottom line is making a profit and laws allow for a wide array of claim denials and their stock is publically trading and the industry is the Nation's Health, isn't there some kind of conflict of interest?

Kaiser Permanente is a not for profit NGO.They have a fantastic business model now. They used to be horrible with their staff model HMO, and they still deal with that negative image all the time. They're a great company to work with now. Kaiser is actually giving money back to members in 2009, an amount of $287 per member across all of their health plans.I think the average person's view of 'claim denials', actual profits vs costs etc is very troubling. I think you're way off in your assumptions about the big bad insurance company Merc. Like I've said, they're ROI sucks.For your information, the roi in the oil industry is only 7.6%, and 5.8 for all of the manufacturing in the US.

[85suited]

Here is something we need in the USQueuingQueuing is a controversial measurement, not least because there may be many explanations for the queuing, many of them medically justifiable, so that aggregate queuing figures may conflate those whose waiting poses no health or other risk with those whose health may be impaired or may suffer pain while waiting. That being said, in a system in which health services are free at the point of consumption, queuing is the most common form of rationing scarce medical resources. And since patient satisfaction plays no part in determining incomes or other economic rewards for health care providers and administrators in the public system, patients' time is treated as if it has no value. There are no penalties in the system for making people wait. It is thus not surprising that the measures of queuing now available, including the Fraser Institute's annual report card, "Waiting Your Turn,"9 indicate a lengthening of queues for a great many medical services, including access to some specialists, diagnostic testing, and surgery. What is surprising is that those administering the system must rely on external studies, not having implemented modern information systems to monitor waiting periods and identify those who have had an excessive wait.

[hblask]

Mercury69, on Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 2:37 PM, said:

3%??? Maybe Health Insurance employees, esp executives, are being paid too much?

If you pay them less, they will go to an industry that pays more or better suits their life in other ways. Fewer providers = less care + higher costs.You weren't seriously proposing price controls, were you? This is another tactic that has a long, sordid history. In fact, it is in large part responsible for the messed up state of medicine in the US. Did you know that it is illegal in the US to charge some patients less than others just because they can afford to pay less?