Health Care Industry Spending $1.4 Million Per Day Lobbying Against Reform

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Phokus


Because it serves as a model that follows pretty much every other country that has universal health insurance vs. their private insurance counterparts. Public insurance will ALWAYS HAVE LOWER OVERHEAD. The fact that you thought canada had public healthcare AND insurance shows that you shouldn't even be talking about the subject.

stickwitharguingaboutpokemonandleavetheadultconversationstogrownups.gif

Every country (with the exception of Cuba and a few others) has a mix of public and private.

Obviously you're unwilling to back up your original statement shows that you have no counter-argument to the link that you refuse to read and just want to talk about Canada and a plan that isn't even on the table, silly me for trying to debate dumbest prick troll on the forum.

And I'll refrain from a file name again, because that's really your own personal trademark on stupidity and trolling.

Do you think Medicare's overhead would magically increase to private insurance levels if they expanded coverage from seniors to the general population as a whole? Many of the costs are fixed costs. You and the author of the link are fucking idiots if you think that's the case. Nothing was debunked and you just have to look at the rest of the world to see public insurance has much less overhead than private.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_conte..._Final_Publication.pdf

Read this when you get a chance. Though I suspect you will simply attack the source. One thing that is very interesting when dealing with overhead costs is it isnt an apples and apples comparison.

I think the most glaring issue is Medicares avg outlay of 6600 per person vs 2700 for private insurance. Even if we managed to maintain the myth of 2% overhead we doubled the actual cost per enrollee by moving to medicare. Which btw contributes to Medicares percieved efficiency. The higher the cost per enrollee the smaller the % fixed administrative costs appear.

Also they deal with other costs that are hidden or outright not counted in medicare's overhead.

Regardless of the source those issues imo are legitimate topics and issues when discussing Medicares overhead.

Umm, everyone on Medicare is old. Well, either that or disabled. Either way they cost way more money to treat, so your direct comparison of outlays is bogus.

Besides, even if the Medicare's outlays were magically reduced to 2700 that wouldn't be enough to increase Medicare's percentage of overhead to that of private insurance.

Read the entire paper. When you factor in other costs that are left off the overhead. The actual overhead cost of Medicare is about 5.2% vs ~8-9% for Private insurance.

We really have no idea how much medicare would cost if it applied to everybody. The latest proposal from Obama's team will cost about 10,000 per insured and only cover 1/3rd of the people currently uninsured. That is going in the wrong direction.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Citrix
bottom line is something needs to be done. people should not have to worry about going broke or losing their house to pay a medical bill. one visit to the hospital for a serious problem will rack up a bill that will wipe out most peoples savings even with insurance.

im sorry but that is just plain wrong.

Yes, you are just plain wrong. With insurance this will not happen, that's what insurance is for. If it does break you then you suck at picking insurance.

See how personal responsibility works?

Except that insurance is responsible for the massive increase in the cost of health care. Insurance should be insurance, not a care plan. Does auto insurance pay for oil changes and new wipers? Why is health insurance supposed to cover everything after a $10 copay? There's no accountability because the patient never sees the bill, so they don't care how much things cost. Why should they? Somebody else is paying for it.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87


http://www.cahi.org/cahi_conte..._Final_Publication.pdf

Read this when you get a chance. Though I suspect you will simply attack the source. One thing that is very interesting when dealing with overhead costs is it isnt an apples and apples comparison.

I think the most glaring issue is Medicares avg outlay of 6600 per person vs 2700 for private insurance. Even if we managed to maintain the myth of 2% overhead we doubled the actual cost per enrollee by moving to medicare. Which btw contributes to Medicares percieved efficiency. The higher the cost per enrollee the smaller the % fixed administrative costs appear.

Also they deal with other costs that are hidden or outright not counted in medicare's overhead.

Regardless of the source those issues imo are legitimate topics and issues when discussing Medicares overhead.

Umm, everyone on Medicare is old. Well, either that or disabled. Either way they cost way more money to treat, so your direct comparison of outlays is bogus.

Besides, even if the Medicare's outlays were magically reduced to 2700 that wouldn't be enough to increase Medicare's percentage of overhead to that of private insurance.

Read the entire paper. When you factor in other costs that are left off the overhead. The actual overhead cost of Medicare is about 5.2% vs ~8-9% for Private insurance.

We really have no idea how much medicare would cost if it applied to everybody. The latest proposal from Obama's team will cost about 10,000 per insured and only cover 1/3rd of the people currently uninsured. That is going in the wrong direction.

According to your link the costs after profit, commission etc. jump to over 16%. The 8-9 figure is purely administrative. I'd like to know what "significant value" we receive for that money.

I agree Obama's plan is kind of crummy, but the current system of allowing for-profit companies into the health care stream that in no way contribute to providing health care is even worse.

What would be nice is to have a government-run catastrophic insurance program and outlaw the gouging by providers of individual patients without private insurance. People could afford reasonably priced, normal preventative care and wouldn't have to sell the house if they need a heart transplant.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
What would be nice is to have a government-run catastrophic insurance program and outlaw the gouging by providers of individual patients without private insurance. People could afford reasonably priced, normal preventative care and wouldn't have to sell the house if they need a heart transplant.

That kind of middle ground will never be tolerated. We will either have health care for nobody sponsored by the Republicans, or Super Ultra Mega Plan for everyone driving us into bankruptcy from the Democrats. Fucking hell both sides are assholes.

 

[Deliximus]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: tvarad
Here's a corollary article where Dr. Devi Shetty speaks about his approach to providing affordable health care:


Interview with Dr. Devi Shetty

I never quite looked at it in a commoditization sense, but here's what he has to say about health care costs in relation to other costs:

"Today if somebody can?t afford a house, a car or mobile phone, it?s okay. When he is in pain and a solution is available but if it is not affordable, that means there is something wrong in the way that business is run. If you look at anything that happened 100 years ago, today it has become affordable to the common man. But healthcare has defied this logic. That?s because policymakers kept saying that people will become more affluent and when they become affluent, they will be able to afford healthcare. What they didn?t realize was that as people became more affluent, the cost of healthcare also kept going up. So it is like a mirage that can never touch. The rise in cost is because of more technology. Twenty years ago if somebody had chest pain, very few centres were doing angioplasty and very few operations were done. Today we operate upon anything that can move. We operate on 90-year-olds. And before the operation there are 25 different tests we perform, each costing Rs 5,000-10,000. That increases the safety of the operation, but it comes at a price. Today there is not even a single agency in the world with a mandate to bring down the cost of healthcare."

I can vouch for this. A few years ago, just the tests for the diagnosis of lupus for my wife cost in excess of $40,000 in tests alone.

I'm not saying that his is the only or right approach but perhaps if the U.S. starts treating basic health-care as a commodity and applies free market principles to it with common sense regulation, some things might change.

sorry to hear about your wife and how much those test cost.

Dude, that sucks man. my ex of 6 years had lupus but all her ongoing tests and treatment were covered by our UHC. she had this since she was 14.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Phokus


Because it serves as a model that follows pretty much every other country that has universal health insurance vs. their private insurance counterparts. Public insurance will ALWAYS HAVE LOWER OVERHEAD. The fact that you thought canada had public healthcare AND insurance shows that you shouldn't even be talking about the subject.

stickwitharguingaboutpokemonandleavetheadultconversationstogrownups.gif

Every country (with the exception of Cuba and a few others) has a mix of public and private.

Obviously you're unwilling to back up your original statement shows that you have no counter-argument to the link that you refuse to read and just want to talk about Canada and a plan that isn't even on the table, silly me for trying to debate dumbest prick troll on the forum.

And I'll refrain from a file name again, because that's really your own personal trademark on stupidity and trolling.

Do you think Medicare's overhead would magically increase to private insurance levels if they expanded coverage from seniors to the general population as a whole? Many of the costs are fixed costs. You and the author of the link are fucking idiots if you think that's the case. Nothing was debunked and you just have to look at the rest of the world to see public insurance has much less overhead than private.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_conte..._Final_Publication.pdf

Read this when you get a chance. Though I suspect you will simply attack the source. One thing that is very interesting when dealing with overhead costs is it isnt an apples and apples comparison.

I think the most glaring issue is Medicares avg outlay of 6600 per person vs 2700 for private insurance. Even if we managed to maintain the myth of 2% overhead we doubled the actual cost per enrollee by moving to medicare. Which btw contributes to Medicares percieved efficiency. The higher the cost per enrollee the smaller the % fixed administrative costs appear.

Also they deal with other costs that are hidden or outright not counted in medicare's overhead.

Regardless of the source those issues imo are legitimate topics and issues when discussing Medicares overhead.

Umm, everyone on Medicare is old. Well, either that or disabled. Either way they cost way more money to treat, so your direct comparison of outlays is bogus.

Besides, even if the Medicare's outlays were magically reduced to 2700 that wouldn't be enough to increase Medicare's percentage of overhead to that of private insurance.

Read the entire paper. When you factor in other costs that are left off the overhead. The actual overhead cost of Medicare is about 5.2% vs ~8-9% for Private insurance.

We really have no idea how much medicare would cost if it applied to everybody. The latest proposal from Obama's team will cost about 10,000 per insured and only cover 1/3rd of the people currently uninsured. That is going in the wrong direction.

I'll read it when i get home, but even if that's true, medicare still has lower overhead.

However, when you look at every other country, their public insurance has less overhead than their private ones and their overall per capita healthcare expenditure is less than ours. There's no escaping the fact that when you have multiple health insurers, you're going to have multiple resources doing the same things when you may need only one and you will have expenditures in private insurance (i.e. marketing/enormous ceo bonuses) that you wouldn't have in public insurance. Plus, with a near monopoly, a single payer system can keep costs lower by using it's monopoly power to keep fee schedules lower/haggle for lower cost prescriptions, etc.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87


http://www.cahi.org/cahi_conte..._Final_Publication.pdf

Read this when you get a chance. Though I suspect you will simply attack the source. One thing that is very interesting when dealing with overhead costs is it isnt an apples and apples comparison.

I think the most glaring issue is Medicares avg outlay of 6600 per person vs 2700 for private insurance. Even if we managed to maintain the myth of 2% overhead we doubled the actual cost per enrollee by moving to medicare. Which btw contributes to Medicares percieved efficiency. The higher the cost per enrollee the smaller the % fixed administrative costs appear.

Also they deal with other costs that are hidden or outright not counted in medicare's overhead.

Regardless of the source those issues imo are legitimate topics and issues when discussing Medicares overhead.

Umm, everyone on Medicare is old. Well, either that or disabled. Either way they cost way more money to treat, so your direct comparison of outlays is bogus.

Besides, even if the Medicare's outlays were magically reduced to 2700 that wouldn't be enough to increase Medicare's percentage of overhead to that of private insurance.

Read the entire paper. When you factor in other costs that are left off the overhead. The actual overhead cost of Medicare is about 5.2% vs ~8-9% for Private insurance.

We really have no idea how much medicare would cost if it applied to everybody. The latest proposal from Obama's team will cost about 10,000 per insured and only cover 1/3rd of the people currently uninsured. That is going in the wrong direction.

According to your link the costs after profit, commission etc. jump to over 16%. The 8-9 figure is purely administrative. I'd like to know what "significant value" we receive for that money.

I agree Obama's plan is kind of crummy, but the current system of allowing for-profit companies into the health care stream that in no way contribute to providing health care is even worse.

What would be nice is to have a government-run catastrophic insurance program and outlaw the gouging by providers of individual patients without private insurance. People could afford reasonably priced, normal preventative care and wouldn't have to sell the house if they need a heart transplant.

I agree with you about a catastrophic insurance program. I honestly think it is the only way to keep healthcare costs down. Right now most insurance plans have a low deductible and if purchased through an employer may not have a deductible at all. There is a huge disconnect between routine medical procedures costs and the consumer. Because when people go to have a batch of tests run all they see is a 15-30 dollar co-pay.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Phokus


Because it serves as a model that follows pretty much every other country that has universal health insurance vs. their private insurance counterparts. Public insurance will ALWAYS HAVE LOWER OVERHEAD. The fact that you thought canada had public healthcare AND insurance shows that you shouldn't even be talking about the subject.

stickwitharguingaboutpokemonandleavetheadultconversationstogrownups.gif

Every country (with the exception of Cuba and a few others) has a mix of public and private.

Obviously you're unwilling to back up your original statement shows that you have no counter-argument to the link that you refuse to read and just want to talk about Canada and a plan that isn't even on the table, silly me for trying to debate dumbest prick troll on the forum.

And I'll refrain from a file name again, because that's really your own personal trademark on stupidity and trolling.

Do you think Medicare's overhead would magically increase to private insurance levels if they expanded coverage from seniors to the general population as a whole? Many of the costs are fixed costs. You and the author of the link are fucking idiots if you think that's the case. Nothing was debunked and you just have to look at the rest of the world to see public insurance has much less overhead than private.

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_conte..._Final_Publication.pdf

Read this when you get a chance. Though I suspect you will simply attack the source. One thing that is very interesting when dealing with overhead costs is it isnt an apples and apples comparison.

I think the most glaring issue is Medicares avg outlay of 6600 per person vs 2700 for private insurance. Even if we managed to maintain the myth of 2% overhead we doubled the actual cost per enrollee by moving to medicare. Which btw contributes to Medicares percieved efficiency. The higher the cost per enrollee the smaller the % fixed administrative costs appear.

Also they deal with other costs that are hidden or outright not counted in medicare's overhead.

Regardless of the source those issues imo are legitimate topics and issues when discussing Medicares overhead.

Umm, everyone on Medicare is old. Well, either that or disabled. Either way they cost way more money to treat, so your direct comparison of outlays is bogus.

Besides, even if the Medicare's outlays were magically reduced to 2700 that wouldn't be enough to increase Medicare's percentage of overhead to that of private insurance.

In other words, Genx87 is misrepresenting the facts on purpose? I'm shocked I tell ya, just shocked!!

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: spidey07
What exactly is broken with the best health care system in the world here in the US?

Really, are you that dense?

Our healthcare system is consistently ranked near the bottom of industrialized nations. We spent more money per capita than any other nation on earth and we don't have the health care system to show for it. Just about any system would be better than what we have right now.

 

[shadow9d9]

Looks like they are paying more than just congressmen to spread the fear. Much easier to deny "pre-existing condition" coverage deny treatment to the tune of billions and pay off the right people.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: spidey07
What exactly is broken with the best health care system in the world here in the US?

Really, are you that dense?

Our healthcare system is consistently ranked near the bottom of industrialized nations. We spent more money per capita than any other nation on earth and we don't have the health care system to show for it. Just about any system would be better than what we have right now.

Not true at all. We have the best health care system in the world, that's why everybody comes here for it. We are the world leader in medicine and treatment. Look at all the big advances in surgery and care - they come from the USA.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: spidey07
What exactly is broken with the best health care system in the world here in the US?

Really, are you that dense?

Our healthcare system is consistently ranked near the bottom of industrialized nations. We spent more money per capita than any other nation on earth and we don't have the health care system to show for it. Just about any system would be better than what we have right now.

Not true at all. We have the best health care system in the world, that's why everybody comes here for it. We are the world leader in medicine and treatment. Look at all the big advances in surgery and care - they come from the USA.

Spoken like someone who has never wanted for anything in their life.

The US has great health care, if you can afford it. For many people not offered health insurance through their employer, private health plans are simply unaffordable. This is because of the incredible costs per person in America. If some changes can be made to lower the cost of these private health plans, that would be great progress.

But I'm beginning to suspect that much of the Republican opposition to health reform is not about taxes, or costs, or anything monetary or systemic. Rather it is due to Republicans' hatred of the poor and the have nots, and anything which makes the poors' lives easier, even if it costs nothing, is bad.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Spoken like someone who has never wanted for anything in their life.

The US has great health care, if you can afford it. For many people not offered health insurance through their employer, private health plans are simply unaffordable. This is because of the incredible costs per person in America. If some changes can be made to lower the cost of these private health plans, that would be great progress.

But I'm beginning to suspect that much of the Republican opposition to health reform is not about taxes, or costs, or anything monetary or systemic. Rather it is due to Republicans' hatred of the poor and the have nots, and anything which makes the poors' lives easier, even if it costs nothing, is bad.

Actually the opposition comes from wanting freedom and government to stay out of our lives and decisions, all core principles of conservatives and freedom loving Americans.

 

[theeedude]

Lost the election, live with it.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

In other words, Genx87 is misrepresenting the facts on purpose? I'm shocked I tell ya, just shocked!!

Did you even read the report? Genx87 is NOT comparing outlays and the report does not do so either. The purpose of bringing up outlays is to show that the administrative costs are MISREPRESENTED due to DIFFERENT OUTLAYS. You bolded the first sentence which isn't even a conclusion or anything. It then goes on to analyze the difference and so you just cherry pick one line to say that Genx is bullshitting. The report acknowledges that people are older and that is why there is a different in outlays. I really hate partisan hacks on this forum, but I hate people who do no research at all and then jump on the bandwagon of bashing.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Looks like they are paying more than just congressmen to spread the fear. Much easier to deny "pre-existing condition" coverage deny treatment to the tune of billions and pay off the right people.

You just go on blabbering about your pre-existing conditions all day long. Look, I sympathize with you ok. It's tough getting insurance out there and in your case I would be devastated too. UHC isn't the solution to this problem and nor is bashing people who oppose UHC. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't want to care for people with pre-existing conditions. There are other ways around this.

 

[theeedude]

The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong? I absolutely agree the pre-existing conditions crap needs to be done away with, but other than that it's fabulous.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong?

Is this a serious question?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. I've yet to see anybody post or answer this in any of these threads. Most of it revolves around "but, but, but those evil corporations being all corporationy!"

The best hospitals, the best care, the most innovation, rapid treatment, etc. All of these are what is so great about our healthcare system.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong?

Is this a serious question?

Yes. I've yet to see anybody post or answer this in any of these threads. Most of it revolves around "but, but, but those evil corporations being all corporationy!"

You don't think there is anything wrong with a system that spends significantly more than other countries to get much worse results and not cover a huge chunk of the population?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong? I absolutely agree the pre-existing conditions crap needs to be done away with, but other than that it's fabulous.

Our system costs many times as much money per capita as other systems that have comparable health outcomes.

Translation: it's insanely inefficient.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong? I absolutely agree the pre-existing conditions crap needs to be done away with, but other than that it's fabulous.

Our system costs many times as much money per capita as other systems that have comparable health outcomes.

Translation: it's insanely inefficient.

You did not answer the question, and nobody ever does.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong? I absolutely agree the pre-existing conditions crap needs to be done away with, but other than that it's fabulous.

Our system costs many times as much money per capita as other systems that have comparable health outcomes.

Translation: it's insanely inefficient.

You did not answer the question, and nobody ever does.

http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong? I absolutely agree the pre-existing conditions crap needs to be done away with, but other than that it's fabulous.

Our system costs many times as much money per capita as other systems that have comparable health outcomes.

Translation: it's insanely inefficient.

You did not answer the question, and nobody ever does.

http://www.galvestoneconomicre...ics/LifeExpectancy.jpg

OK - and why exactly is that a problem or something wrong?

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp
The side that says there are other ways to solve this aside from UHC had 15 years to do so and did nothing. Now it's time to accept that UHC is the solution. I do sympathize with the people whining about higher taxes and bigger government, I really do. But the solution is not the status quo or bashing people who support UHC.

What exactly is wrong with our great healthcare system we have today? Exactly what is wrong? I absolutely agree the pre-existing conditions crap needs to be done away with, but other than that it's fabulous.

Our system costs many times as much money per capita as other systems that have comparable health outcomes.

Translation: it's insanely inefficient.

You did not answer the question, and nobody ever does.

How is saying the system is "insanely inefficient" not answering your question?