Healthcare Industry to Propose $2 trillion in cost cuts

[Acanthus]

The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

Define "for profit"

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

Define "for profit"

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Of course the healthcare industry is afraid. Obama admin has shown that they are the most interventionist admin in the history of USA with the involvement in AIG/Fannie/Freddie/Big 3's. And their skill in vilifying certain groups, demonstrated in the AIG bonues case, is unparellel.

But hey, if they can get the health care industry which has been sucking American dry to play nice a little, I am all for it.

You do realize that all of those examples you gave were done under the Bush administration, right?

The AIG bonus situation was Obama's admin....but it wasn't something that any rational person wouldn't have been offended by either. The division of the company which put it on the brink of collapse deserved bonuses about as much as a pedophile needs to be granted a license to run a day care from his home.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Insurance Inc, knows they'll outlast Obama and run the show again soon enough...

Looks like us health care providers are going to get yet another screwing.

BTW, all this talk about "efficiency" of government is nonsense. "Overhead"? That the thing they reduce by passing all the work to the health care providers. That's why some practices have had to cut back on trained staff to afford the increase costs of getting things done with insurance (and to be fair the private insurance is almost as bad). Want to see a nurse or doctor go nuts? Say "prior authorization". That's the process where we spend a fair amount of time trying to get a medication approved for a patient. That's time we don't spend taking care of the patient. With Medicaid it's a joke. In NY, the prescriber has to contact Medicaid for the authorization, and then the pharmacist has to do the same thing. Why twice? No one has any idea. Further prior auth is a joke. Virtually every claim is approved. Why bother?

So we have to do all this crap, but we just had a very expensive brand name medication go generic. All the private insurance companies have allowed us to bill for the generic, but on average it takes 3 months for Medicaid to get around adding a drug to it's formulary. That's going to cost millions for just one drug. Does government tell you how wonderful that is? Nope, because it would look bad. It never happened.

Sure government "overhead" is lower, but it does so at the expense to others and its inefficiencies. I'd rather they spend more money updating the system they use and decrease the long term TCO to everyone. Nope, not a chance. Can't happen because it's government run. A business can reallocate resources by a change of policy. A government entity needs to change it's statutory regulations. Government isn't designed to change on the fly, and therefore it's always behind the curve when it comes to adapting policies. We've been trying to get rid of some glaring problems with HIPPA, and Congress is too busy to bother. Imagine how it's going to be if they get complete control over health care?

Now at this point someone usually brings up Sweden or some such place. Well this isn't Europe. We buy and sell policy by pandering to groups and special interests. Obama could have selected someone who has an intimate knowledge of medicine. He picked paper pushers instead.

If Congress can't get the simple things right, explain to me how they will understand and get right the nuances and needs of what is probably the most complex and intricate industry on the planet. They've been screwing things up beyond all recognition for decades, and NOW they are going to get it all right? Pull the other one.

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

I dont see profit motive being a problem. I see a system that is so vital to people's very existence they are willing to spend every cent possible to prolong their life forever.

The problems you see right now wont disappear when the govt takes it over. It may actually get worse due to people thinking everything is "free" and we granted politicians the keys to our lives.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

I dont see profit motive being a problem. I see a system that is so vital to people's very existence they are willing to spend every cent possible to prolong their life forever.

The problems you see right now wont disappear when the govt takes it over. It may actually get worse due to people thinking everything is "free" and we granted politicians the keys to our lives.

Thats why you keep deductibles on visits and meds.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

I dont see profit motive being a problem. I see a system that is so vital to people's very existence they are willing to spend every cent possible to prolong their life forever.

The problems you see right now wont disappear when the govt takes it over. It may actually get worse due to people thinking everything is "free" and we granted politicians the keys to our lives.

Thats why you keep deductibles on visits and meds.

Right, you think that is going to happen? That would be denying the poor the "right" to "free" medical care.

I'd be in favor of a catostrophic insurance policy run by govt. One with a 2500 deductible designed around high cost care. What we will get however is a buffet line of care for 0 deductible that will cost us through the nose and provide less quality.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

Define "for profit"

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

I'm trying to get you to examine your statements.

Are you saying people who work ought not to make money, and precisely how are they out to drive up costs?

Are you old enough to remember not many years back when smaller hospitals either went under or were merged because they didn't make enough money? If they were so profitable, why aren't they there?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

All insurance is robbing Peter to pay Paul. And yes, we do want a universal health plan based on Medicare.

Kind of.

Insurance is based on the distribution of risk among a group of people. It was started back in ancient China and Babylon. The Chinese merchants realized that if they gave each one of the other boats some of their bags, and split all the bags up over the group of boats instead of solely on their own, would help ensure that they always had goods to sell even if a boat capsizes. Take 10 boats each with 10 bags of goods to sell, if you give each boat one bag then you still have 9 if one capsizes. If you took all that risk on your own, and your boat capsizes they would lose all their goods and be unable to earn any money. Text

Current insurance is based on that principle of risk distribution. Obviously it's not exactly the same, but it's similar concept.

So it's not "robbing Peter to pay Paul", but instead Peter and Paul pool their money so if something does happen to either one they can recover from. Where this becomes problematic is if Peter doesn't have any losses (or very infrequent), but Paul has a lot of losses then it's not fair for Peter. I'm not a fan of the way the insurance industry is, but I see the need for it and currently we don't have any other way. If you want to discuss it further, send me a PM

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Actually I don't think that's accurate since what Obama has been floating is a plan where people could choose to buy the government health care instead of the private health care. Its the threat of having to compete with the hugely efficient Medicare system (which has amazingly low overhead costs) which is scaring the private health insurance companies that can use up to 30 percent of their premiums recieved for "overhead" instead of the like 2 percent Medicare uses for "overhead".

Medicare has a major cash flow crisis looming in the not too distant future, and is largely a failed and unsustainable program. Sure seniors love it, but it is essentially a program of robbing Peter to provide health care to Paul. I don't think we want to model a universal health care plan based on Medicare.

So, the riskiest, most expensive population is having money problems, and therefore, the healthier segment of society would be just as unprofitable? Brains?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

Define "for profit"

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

I'm trying to get you to examine your statements.

Are you saying people who work ought not to make money, and precisely how are they out to drive up costs?

Are you old enough to remember not many years back when smaller hospitals either went under or were merged because they didn't make enough money? If they were so profitable, why aren't they there?

I think that is the very definition of a strawman.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

Define "for profit"

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

I'm trying to get you to examine your statements.

Are you saying people who work ought not to make money, and precisely how are they out to drive up costs?

Are you old enough to remember not many years back when smaller hospitals either went under or were merged because they didn't make enough money? If they were so profitable, why aren't they there?

I think that is the very definition of a strawman.

Yeah, I know that's what he used, but does he understand what's behind the slogans?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

Define "for profit"

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

I'm trying to get you to examine your statements.

Are you saying people who work ought not to make money, and precisely how are they out to drive up costs?

Are you old enough to remember not many years back when smaller hospitals either went under or were merged because they didn't make enough money? If they were so profitable, why aren't they there?

I think that is the very definition of a strawman.

Yeah, I know that's what he used, but does he understand what's behind the slogans?

Good attempt at deflection.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

This is what you just did.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

Define "for profit"

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

I'm trying to get you to examine your statements.

Are you saying people who work ought not to make money, and precisely how are they out to drive up costs?

Are you old enough to remember not many years back when smaller hospitals either went under or were merged because they didn't make enough money? If they were so profitable, why aren't they there?

I think that is the very definition of a strawman.

Yeah, I know that's what he used, but does he understand what's behind the slogans?

Good attempt at deflection.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

This is what you just did.

I know exactly what you meant. Now let's see how good you are at mind reading.

He said

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money

So what? What precisely does he mean by this, and how do you know what he means? How much money should they be making?

he also said

and drive up costs.

Well what the heck does that mean? Precisely how and by what means does he think this happens?

For that matter, do you have any idea at all or are you just the forum straw man finder?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh while we are at it, if hospitals are driving up health care costs for profits, why do they run out of money and close?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Oh while we are at it, if hospitals are driving up health care costs for profits, why do they run out of money and close?

Red Herring. You gonna use 'em all?

 

[PokerGuy]

Yeah, I'm just so looking forward to see the same level of incompetence and complete lack of any accountability extended to include my health care. It's not quite bad enough to have to wait in line at the DMV, or deal with the insanity that is the bureacracy that is the IRS, I'd much rather also have my health care in the hands of a massive corrupt government system. Yay! :roll:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Oh while we are at it, if hospitals are driving up health care costs for profits, why do they run out of money and close?

Red Herring. You gonna use 'em all?

So you can't answer the question either can you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've found that when there is a lack of understanding of a situation, that the appeal to red herrings and strawmen is the last resort of the clueless.

Let's look at what started this.

The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

What the heck does that mean? Does it consider that many health care organizations not for profit? Well if it's a "for profit" then it doesn't. Further of course insurance is for profit. It's a private business. It's there to go broke?


So I ask what "for profit" means. I get a rather unhelpful

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

Now how precisely are they doing that? Hospitals crashed a while back and that's completely forgotten. If they could drive up costs, then why do they fail? Because they are very expensive organizations to run.

The general response- "Nice red herring"
Willful ignorance- Priceless.

 

[Slew Foot]

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

You left out drug companies and equiptment manufacturers, the two most profitable segments in the the industry.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Hospital administrations and insurance companies are out to make money and drive up costs.

You left out drug companies and equiptment manufacturers, the two most profitable segments in the the industry.

I'm realizing that the most critical have no idea what really drives health care costs.

It's increasing utilization of an increased standard of care. When we go to the hospital, no one says "give me the third best treatment or test, it's a lot cheaper". No patient wants that. They want the best that exists. The physician cannot ethically decide to give a second rate test if he or she feels the more expensive one would give better results, and it usually does. Besides, if they did and things went wrong then they are liable for not meeting the current standards of practice.

Therefore costs to hospitals are increasing mostly because of the state of technology. Improve or die. That costs $$$$.

It's not administrators that seek to increase costs, but the need to improve treatment which automatically escalates the bill for being treated.

The only way the government can prevent this is to effectively lower the standard of care by restricting access to higher technology. When people find out what that really means, the politicians are going to have to give in, and the TCO of medical care will go up.

Perhaps we need a two tiered health care system. One for those who want cost containment, and the other for those willing to pay for it either by taxes or by private insurance.

Good luck with either option.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs
the hugely efficient Medicare system (which has amazingly low overhead costs) which is scaring the private health insurance companies that can use up to 30 percent of their premiums recieved for "overhead" instead of the like 2 percent Medicare uses for "overhead".

there's that tired old fallacy again.

Sane person definition of fallacy: the reasoning mistakes by which people, usually right-wingers, reach their wrong conclusions.

Right-wing definition of fallacy: the truth, when it disagrees with their biases and ideology.

The fact is that the private insurance system is massively bloated and more expensive than alternatives, and has the money as a result to propagandize people like ElFenix.

2% is the dollar cost of claims paid divided by the dollar cost of administering claims. so, what's not included? the salaries of the people who run medicare/aid aren't included. the collection of the medicare/aid taxes isn't included. rules/fraud enforcement isn't included. basically the only thing they included was the cost of paper. add that to the fact that medicare/aid claims per beneficiary cost more than double the medical insurance industry, and you've got well over 2%. that is why throwing 2% out there is a fallacy.

not to mention that it elides the real question, which is whether medical outcomes for the amount of money spent are better under the medicare/aid system than the alternative. i think that is a much more important measure of efficiency, myself. so that's a 2nd fallacy.

not to mention practically your whole post was a fallacy.


edit: i see that hayabusa rider explained some of the reason why the 2% number is wrong. i guess he's a right-wing propagandist too

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The #1 problem with the healthcare system is that it's a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with the healthcare system is the insurance is a for profit industry.

The #1 problem with a government healthcare system is that it's not a for profit industry.

The #2 problem with a government healthcare system is that it's not even a break even industry.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

It's also difficult to get the best treatment.

probably a more accurate statement.