Healthcare Industry to Propose $2 trillion in cost cuts

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Nebor

So what? No one has a RIGHT to health care. It's not enumerated in the bill of rights.

Hahahaha.

Hey man, you know what IS enumerated in the Bill of Rights? The 9th amendment. You know, the amendment that says a right doesn't need to be enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be a right.

What the 9th guarantees is that the federal government cannot take away rights because they aren't explicitly listed.

There is no inherent right to have the government pay for health care. What the government may NOT do is say "Sorry, no matter what you do you cannot have health care. You have the money? Nope. You can't buy it."

There is no imperative for the government to provide health care, but it can't stand in the way of people trying to obtain it on their own.

I might as well say that because the Second allows for ownership of firearms, it is incumbent to buy me a gun if I can't afford it. It's right there in the Constitution after all. Well, no it's not.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Nebor

So what? No one has a RIGHT to health care. It's not enumerated in the bill of rights.

Hahahaha.

Hey man, you know what IS enumerated in the Bill of Rights? The 9th amendment. You know, the amendment that says a right doesn't need to be enumerated in the Bill of Rights to be a right.

To be fair, the 9th doesn't mean that everything is a right. It's more about the rights of the federal government being restricted. Helathcare is not a constitutional right IMO.

On the other hand, every Congress, my Congressman Pete Stark introduces a bill to add a constitutional amendment guaranteeing universal healthcare. I'd vote for it.

 

[Modelworks]

Waiting to see if it is a bait and switch.
Play nice while the attention is on them, then once the topic is past, go back to their old ways.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: 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.

I'll play along with you. But don't expect any "real-time" responses....I'm only on during the early mornings now.

1. What drives up costs? -- The lack of viable preventive care, poor decisions regarding diet/exercise and end of life treatments related to the first two.

2. 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. -- Complete and utter bullshit but with some truth behind it (if that's even possible). While the patient wants that, the insurer is doing everything in their power to refuse it. They will deny treatments, force patients to get "pre-approvals" before treatments can be undertaken which often times worsens the conditions. The health care systems aren't really helping too much in this either. They run their operation more to make money than they do to treat anymore. They cut costs by eliminating staff and by providing less services. They refuse give those with no insurance any breaks either. How can a hospital charge an insurance company 60-70% LESS than what they are able to charge someone without insurance. To me, it would seem logical if that was the other way around.

3. Therefore costs to hospitals are increasing mostly because of the state of technology. Improve or die. That costs $$$$. Once again, I have to call bullshit. Technology can be and is reducing the costs of treatment. It is the incompetence of the insurance system that it driving them up. Malpractice insurance anyone? Technology can reduce the overhead costs, eliminate the need to have rooms with nothing other than files and speed up the information doctors need to make a proper diagnosis.

4. 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. Once again, complete and utter horseshit. Using this line of reasoning, countries with various forms of UHC would be receiving less care and have it cost more. The fact of the matter is that the exact opposite is true. Their costs are less than 1/2 of ours in most cases, their population's life spans are longer than ours, their infant mortality rates are less than ours and their quality of care ranks as better by the WHO and others that have done studies.

5. 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. That's about the first logical and rational thing you've said.

I'm sorry,do you work in health care or did you spend a night at a Motel 6?

Wow....you really got me with that response. How could I possibly rebut such well thought out and reasoned responses?

And if you think that working in a particular field makes you a de facto expert on the topic....I see where your response came from.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You posted as if you knew what you were talking about, yet you haven't done a single minute's worth of work, not billed for one second nor have any experience of any kind working in health care. I'll wager you've not had one second of training in cost containment have you?

Yet you purport to know what is fact and what is not, totally unencumbered by data.

Knock yourself out, because you don't want to be confused by facts.

Go for it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: 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.

$100 for an OTC tylenol is ok?

$214 for a 15 minute checkup is ok?

$350 for a round of STD testing is ok?

$86,000 for a double mamectomy is ok?

Theres a number of problems, but the number one problem is people making money off of others suffering.

The $100 Tylenol number is and always was bogus. A decade or more ago hospitals rolled all the associated costs up into a few things. That price of that pill covered a lot of things, from heat and electricity, to the janitorial staff and a dozen other things that the hospital paid for but wasn't directly billed. That's long changed.

As far as the other prices go, yeah tying up an emergency department costs a lot of money. Have you any concept of how many people it takes to provide the level of care you might need? Obviously not.

Here is what you want. You look at a pill and completely want to disregard the time and money a hospital spent in diagnosing and testing to find out that the 5 buck pill is the one you should have. You want to pay 5 dollars.

Do you even work for a living? If you were an attorney, would you want to be paid for the cost of paper of an appeal? If you were an engineer, would you say "hey I really don't want money for my time and expertise. The price of the CD with my designs was just about a quarter. I'll take that"?

Oh no, you would want to be paid, just like the doctors and nurses and the janitor and maintenance people working at a place that one day might save you life.

You are really clueless about this. You cry that you want it for free. Life is so unfair for you.

You need to grow up.

If i were an attorney working for a business, i would be on retainer for a flat fee.

If i were an engineer, I wouldnt be working at the hospital.

I dont want it for free. I think that the people that cant afford it need a method to do so. It can be a single payer system, it can be government run insurance, it can be nationalization of the entire healthcare industry. All of my statements earlier stand on their own. The excessive prices on OTC meds are still present in hospitals. Excessive cost for routine checkups and perscription renewals is a joke.

"Life is so unfair to you" are you serious? No healthcare is very serious.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: 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.

$100 for an OTC tylenol is ok?

$214 for a 15 minute checkup is ok?

$350 for a round of STD testing is ok?

$86,000 for a double mamectomy is ok?

Theres a number of problems, but the number one problem is people making money off of others suffering.

The $100 Tylenol number is and always was bogus. A decade or more ago hospitals rolled all the associated costs up into a few things. That price of that pill covered a lot of things, from heat and electricity, to the janitorial staff and a dozen other things that the hospital paid for but wasn't directly billed. That's long changed.

As far as the other prices go, yeah tying up an emergency department costs a lot of money. Have you any concept of how many people it takes to provide the level of care you might need? Obviously not.

Here is what you want. You look at a pill and completely want to disregard the time and money a hospital spent in diagnosing and testing to find out that the 5 buck pill is the one you should have. You want to pay 5 dollars.

Do you even work for a living? If you were an attorney, would you want to be paid for the cost of paper of an appeal? If you were an engineer, would you say "hey I really don't want money for my time and expertise. The price of the CD with my designs was just about a quarter. I'll take that"?

Oh no, you would want to be paid, just like the doctors and nurses and the janitor and maintenance people working at a place that one day might save you life.

You are really clueless about this. You cry that you want it for free. Life is so unfair for you.

You need to grow up.

If i were an attorney working for a business, i would be on retainer for a flat fee.

If i were an engineer, I wouldnt be working at the hospital.

I dont want it for free. I think that the people that cant afford it need a method to do so. It can be a single payer system, it can be government run insurance, it can be nationalization of the entire healthcare industry. All of my statements earlier stand on their own. The excessive prices on OTC meds are still present in hospitals. Excessive cost for routine checkups and perscription renewals is a joke.

"Life is so unfair to you" are you serious? No healthcare is very serious.

So if you were an attorney you would expect to be paid for your work.

If you were an engineer you would want to be paid

Evidently if you want to be paid for your expertise you shouldn't work at a hospital.

So just what do you do for a living?

 

[kitkat22]

The biggest thing I really don't want to see is a physicians salary get axed through all of this. If you send a doctor through 4 years medical school + 3-6 years residency they had better well expect at least a 6 figure salary at the end of it.

It blows my mind that we are now saying we need more physicians, but the cost of education has increased and physicians salaries are at risk and continued risk of falling. Seems very counter-intuitive. Physicians, as a whole, are not the problem. Yes, there are some docs that should not be docs, but a guy operating on someones brain should have an income of $700k/yr. The average family doctor makes about $135k, a surgeon about $250k and if you specialize in something different it might be more. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You posted as if you knew what you were talking about, yet you haven't done a single minute's worth of work, not billed for one second nor have any experience of any kind working in health care. I'll wager you've not had one second of training in cost containment have you?

Yet you purport to know what is fact and what is not, totally unencumbered by data.

Knock yourself out, because you don't want to be confused by facts.

Go for it.

Actually, you are wrong on a lot of fronts there. What you didn't see in my response was a denial about past experience working in the sector.

What I didn't see however was you grasping the fact that a great majority of people are stupid. And with such a glaring fact being said, a lot of people have "experience" yet still don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Now, if you would like to actually engage in an adult conversation about the responses that I gave and any real answers that I can then rebut with facts and data, have at it. I'll be happy to do just that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You posted as if you knew what you were talking about, yet you haven't done a single minute's worth of work, not billed for one second nor have any experience of any kind working in health care. I'll wager you've not had one second of training in cost containment have you?

Yet you purport to know what is fact and what is not, totally unencumbered by data.

Knock yourself out, because you don't want to be confused by facts.

Go for it.

Actually, you are wrong on a lot of fronts there. What you didn't see in my response was a denial about past experience working in the sector.

What I didn't see however was you grasping the fact that a great majority of people are stupid. And with such a glaring fact being said, a lot of people have "experience" yet still don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Now, if you would like to actually engage in an adult conversation about the responses that I gave and any real answers that I can then rebut with facts and data, have at it. I'll be happy to do just that.

Actually I gave you facts, and in your adult fashion decided it was horseshit. I really don't care to engage in a discussion with you because you have your mind made up. Sorry, I can't undo what I see every day, but hey feel free to tell me I don't see what I do every day. At this point I'm out because the whole thing is moot. Anything I say will either be disregarded or called a lie because it can't possibly be true.

As for me, I'll follow the an old adage and get out of your way.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: 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.

$100 for an OTC tylenol is ok?

$214 for a 15 minute checkup is ok?

$350 for a round of STD testing is ok?

$86,000 for a double mamectomy is ok?

Theres a number of problems, but the number one problem is people making money off of others suffering.

The $100 Tylenol number is and always was bogus. A decade or more ago hospitals rolled all the associated costs up into a few things. That price of that pill covered a lot of things, from heat and electricity, to the janitorial staff and a dozen other things that the hospital paid for but wasn't directly billed. That's long changed.

As far as the other prices go, yeah tying up an emergency department costs a lot of money. Have you any concept of how many people it takes to provide the level of care you might need? Obviously not.

Here is what you want. You look at a pill and completely want to disregard the time and money a hospital spent in diagnosing and testing to find out that the 5 buck pill is the one you should have. You want to pay 5 dollars.

Do you even work for a living? If you were an attorney, would you want to be paid for the cost of paper of an appeal? If you were an engineer, would you say "hey I really don't want money for my time and expertise. The price of the CD with my designs was just about a quarter. I'll take that"?

Oh no, you would want to be paid, just like the doctors and nurses and the janitor and maintenance people working at a place that one day might save you life.

You are really clueless about this. You cry that you want it for free. Life is so unfair for you.

You need to grow up.

If i were an attorney working for a business, i would be on retainer for a flat fee.

If i were an engineer, I wouldnt be working at the hospital.

I dont want it for free. I think that the people that cant afford it need a method to do so. It can be a single payer system, it can be government run insurance, it can be nationalization of the entire healthcare industry. All of my statements earlier stand on their own. The excessive prices on OTC meds are still present in hospitals. Excessive cost for routine checkups and perscription renewals is a joke.

"Life is so unfair to you" are you serious? No healthcare is very serious.

So if you were an attorney you would expect to be paid for your work.

If you were an engineer you would want to be paid

Evidently if you want to be paid for your expertise you shouldn't work at a hospital.

So just what do you do for a living?

You do understand that a non-profit organization pays its employees a competitive wage right?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
The biggest thing I really don't want to see is a physicians salary get axed through all of this. If you send a doctor through 4 years medical school + 3-6 years residency they had better well expect at least a 6 figure salary at the end of it.

It blows my mind that we are now saying we need more physicians, but the cost of education has increased and physicians salaries are at risk and continued risk of falling. Seems very counter-intuitive. Physicians, as a whole, are not the problem. Yes, there are some docs that should not be docs, but a guy operating on someones brain should have an income of $700k/yr. The average family doctor makes about $135k, a surgeon about $250k and if you specialize in something different it might be more. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

The only problem with this reasoning (which is fairly sound) is that the medical field is artificially kept at a very, very low staff level on purpose.

There are caps on how many applicants get into school which keep it that way. Even a state with almost 37 million residents had less than 5000 even apply to med school. Hell, the entire US with its population of >350 million only had 42, 231 in 2008.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think that if more students were allowed into med school, you could get a lot of quality doctors into the field which could lower salaries and cut costs. But that isn't about to happen any time soon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: 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.

$100 for an OTC tylenol is ok?

$214 for a 15 minute checkup is ok?

$350 for a round of STD testing is ok?

$86,000 for a double mamectomy is ok?

Theres a number of problems, but the number one problem is people making money off of others suffering.

The $100 Tylenol number is and always was bogus. A decade or more ago hospitals rolled all the associated costs up into a few things. That price of that pill covered a lot of things, from heat and electricity, to the janitorial staff and a dozen other things that the hospital paid for but wasn't directly billed. That's long changed.

As far as the other prices go, yeah tying up an emergency department costs a lot of money. Have you any concept of how many people it takes to provide the level of care you might need? Obviously not.

Here is what you want. You look at a pill and completely want to disregard the time and money a hospital spent in diagnosing and testing to find out that the 5 buck pill is the one you should have. You want to pay 5 dollars.

Do you even work for a living? If you were an attorney, would you want to be paid for the cost of paper of an appeal? If you were an engineer, would you say "hey I really don't want money for my time and expertise. The price of the CD with my designs was just about a quarter. I'll take that"?

Oh no, you would want to be paid, just like the doctors and nurses and the janitor and maintenance people working at a place that one day might save you life.

You are really clueless about this. You cry that you want it for free. Life is so unfair for you.

You need to grow up.

If i were an attorney working for a business, i would be on retainer for a flat fee.

If i were an engineer, I wouldnt be working at the hospital.

I dont want it for free. I think that the people that cant afford it need a method to do so. It can be a single payer system, it can be government run insurance, it can be nationalization of the entire healthcare industry. All of my statements earlier stand on their own. The excessive prices on OTC meds are still present in hospitals. Excessive cost for routine checkups and perscription renewals is a joke.

"Life is so unfair to you" are you serious? No healthcare is very serious.

So if you were an attorney you would expect to be paid for your work.

If you were an engineer you would want to be paid

Evidently if you want to be paid for your expertise you shouldn't work at a hospital.

So just what do you do for a living?

You do understand that a non-profit organization pays its employees a competitive wage right?

You understand that many hospitals are non-profit, right?

Anyway, I'm going to let you and the other guy I've been talking to have the floor. There's a point where it's clear that things are just automatic gainsaying. I think there's no chance that you are going to understand what I've been trying to say, and to spare us both I'm not going to bother.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
The biggest thing I really don't want to see is a physicians salary get axed through all of this. If you send a doctor through 4 years medical school + 3-6 years residency they had better well expect at least a 6 figure salary at the end of it.

It blows my mind that we are now saying we need more physicians, but the cost of education has increased and physicians salaries are at risk and continued risk of falling. Seems very counter-intuitive. Physicians, as a whole, are not the problem. Yes, there are some docs that should not be docs, but a guy operating on someones brain should have an income of $700k/yr. The average family doctor makes about $135k, a surgeon about $250k and if you specialize in something different it might be more. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

So reducing artificial restrictions on the number of physicians is a bad thing? Build more medical schools and let as many qualified people in as possible. Physicians salaries may go down, but tough shit. Let the free market, not the AMA, decide what physicians are worth.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

I'll play along with you. But don't expect any "real-time" responses....I'm only on during the early mornings now.

1. What drives up costs? -- The lack of viable preventive care, poor decisions regarding diet/exercise and end of life treatments related to the first two.

2. 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. -- Complete and utter bullshit but with some truth behind it (if that's even possible). While the patient wants that, the insurer is doing everything in their power to refuse it. They will deny treatments, force patients to get "pre-approvals" before treatments can be undertaken which often times worsens the conditions. The health care systems aren't really helping too much in this either. They run their operation more to make money than they do to treat anymore. They cut costs by eliminating staff and by providing less services. They refuse give those with no insurance any breaks either. How can a hospital charge an insurance company 60-70% LESS than what they are able to charge someone without insurance. To me, it would seem logical if that was the other way around.

3. Therefore costs to hospitals are increasing mostly because of the state of technology. Improve or die. That costs $$$$. Once again, I have to call bullshit. Technology can be and is reducing the costs of treatment. It is the incompetence of the insurance system that it driving them up. Malpractice insurance anyone? Technology can reduce the overhead costs, eliminate the need to have rooms with nothing other than files and speed up the information doctors need to make a proper diagnosis.

4. 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. Once again, complete and utter horseshit. Using this line of reasoning, countries with various forms of UHC would be receiving less care and have it cost more. The fact of the matter is that the exact opposite is true. Their costs are less than 1/2 of ours in most cases, their population's life spans are longer than ours, their infant mortality rates are less than ours and their quality of care ranks as better by the WHO and others that have done studies.

5. 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. That's about the first logical and rational thing you've said.

I'm sorry,do you work in health care or did you spend a night at a Motel 6?

I work in health care, and everything he says is spot on, I wouldn't dispute anything he is saying. I've seen, worked, helped, and faced the reality of providing health care. I've personally seen patients whose health have been harmed because of the insurance system. I've watched patients walk away being unable to fill a prescription because of insurance loop-holes, knowing fully that in all likelihood, they will end up in the hospital in the next few months, costing the system thousands of dollars that could have been saved if they were covered for the medications. I've faced the reality of hospitals having to eat thousand dollar bills since there was no way the patient was ever going to be able to afford the medical bills they would have to pay. I've watched patients walk out AMA because of insurance problems.

Let's face the reality, insurance companies are middlemen who are dictating patient care. Its not the physicians, its not the nurses, its not even the patients, its the insurance companies who control the system. The insurance companies primary goal is not making the best of patient care, its to satisfy their investors. That is the fundamental issue at the heart of the problem. The people deciding health care, are the ones who are looking out for themselves first and foremost.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You posted as if you knew what you were talking about, yet you haven't done a single minute's worth of work, not billed for one second nor have any experience of any kind working in health care. I'll wager you've not had one second of training in cost containment have you?

Yet you purport to know what is fact and what is not, totally unencumbered by data.

Knock yourself out, because you don't want to be confused by facts.

Go for it.

Actually, you are wrong on a lot of fronts there. What you didn't see in my response was a denial about past experience working in the sector.

What I didn't see however was you grasping the fact that a great majority of people are stupid. And with such a glaring fact being said, a lot of people have "experience" yet still don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Now, if you would like to actually engage in an adult conversation about the responses that I gave and any real answers that I can then rebut with facts and data, have at it. I'll be happy to do just that.

Actually I gave you facts, and in your adult fashion decided it was horseshit. I really don't care to engage in a discussion with you because you have your mind made up. Sorry, I can't undo what I see every day, but hey feel free to tell me I don't see what I do every day. At this point I'm out because the whole thing is moot. Anything I say will either be disregarded or called a lie because it can't possibly be true.

As for me, I'll follow the an old adage and get out of your way.

What you gave were opinions, not facts. Now, I'm ready, willing and able to have my mind changed (although you are right and it is fairly set) if you can actually present more than conjecture.

Also, I'm not asking you to undo anything that you see. I would just prefer that you back it up with more than antidotes and opinion.

I do like your last line however. It's a nice shot.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: abj13
Let's face the reality, insurance companies are middlemen who are dictating patient care. Its not the physicians, its not the nurses, its not even the patients, its the insurance companies who control the system. The insurance companies primary goal is not making the best of patient care, its to satisfy their investors. That is the fundamental issue at the heart of the problem. The people deciding health care, are the ones who are looking out for themselves first and foremost.

And Washington bureaucrats deciding health care is better than an insurance company deciding health care? After everything I've seen from the feds during my lifetime, I'll take my chances with the private insurers, thanks.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: 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.

$100 for an OTC tylenol is ok?

$214 for a 15 minute checkup is ok?

$350 for a round of STD testing is ok?

$86,000 for a double mamectomy is ok?

Theres a number of problems, but the number one problem is people making money off of others suffering.

The $100 Tylenol number is and always was bogus. A decade or more ago hospitals rolled all the associated costs up into a few things. That price of that pill covered a lot of things, from heat and electricity, to the janitorial staff and a dozen other things that the hospital paid for but wasn't directly billed. That's long changed.

As far as the other prices go, yeah tying up an emergency department costs a lot of money. Have you any concept of how many people it takes to provide the level of care you might need? Obviously not.

Here is what you want. You look at a pill and completely want to disregard the time and money a hospital spent in diagnosing and testing to find out that the 5 buck pill is the one you should have. You want to pay 5 dollars.

Do you even work for a living? If you were an attorney, would you want to be paid for the cost of paper of an appeal? If you were an engineer, would you say "hey I really don't want money for my time and expertise. The price of the CD with my designs was just about a quarter. I'll take that"?

Oh no, you would want to be paid, just like the doctors and nurses and the janitor and maintenance people working at a place that one day might save you life.

You are really clueless about this. You cry that you want it for free. Life is so unfair for you.

You need to grow up.

If i were an attorney working for a business, i would be on retainer for a flat fee.

If i were an engineer, I wouldnt be working at the hospital.

I dont want it for free. I think that the people that cant afford it need a method to do so. It can be a single payer system, it can be government run insurance, it can be nationalization of the entire healthcare industry. All of my statements earlier stand on their own. The excessive prices on OTC meds are still present in hospitals. Excessive cost for routine checkups and perscription renewals is a joke.

"Life is so unfair to you" are you serious? No healthcare is very serious.

So if you were an attorney you would expect to be paid for your work.

If you were an engineer you would want to be paid

Evidently if you want to be paid for your expertise you shouldn't work at a hospital.

So just what do you do for a living?

You do understand that a non-profit organization pays its employees a competitive wage right?

You understand that many hospitals are non-profit, right?

Anyway, I'm going to let you and the other guy I've been talking to have the floor. There's a point where it's clear that things are just automatic gainsaying. I think there's no chance that you are going to understand what I've been trying to say, and to spare us both I'm not going to bother.

You are continually changing the subject at hand and not debating.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
The biggest thing I really don't want to see is a physicians salary get axed through all of this. If you send a doctor through 4 years medical school + 3-6 years residency they had better well expect at least a 6 figure salary at the end of it.

It blows my mind that we are now saying we need more physicians, but the cost of education has increased and physicians salaries are at risk and continued risk of falling. Seems very counter-intuitive. Physicians, as a whole, are not the problem. Yes, there are some docs that should not be docs, but a guy operating on someones brain should have an income of $700k/yr. The average family doctor makes about $135k, a surgeon about $250k and if you specialize in something different it might be more. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

So reducing artificial restrictions on the number of physicians is a bad thing? Build more medical schools and let as many qualified people in as possible. Physicians salaries may go down, but tough shit. Let the free market, not the AMA, decide what physicians are worth.

It's already happening, several local medical schools have increased their freshman class anywhere from 10 to 25% compared to last year. However, what no one is asking is what about after medical school? If you pump out all these new med school grads, you're going to have to train them. Meanwhile, teaching hospitals have had massive budget CUTS from the government over the last 10 years. Check out what happened with the UK, when their med schools dumped out tons of new grads and their inept government didn't bother to increase funding to open new intern positions.

Hayabusa:
Don't bother with arguing some of the posters, they believe health care providers should make less than a UAW worker and Nurses should make less than a bus driver. As healthcare is a "right" therefore it should be free like "Freedom of speech" and the air we breathe.

People are complaining about the salaries of healthcare workers when the larger part of the costs are due to pharmaceuticals and keeping 85 year old grandma alive for as long as possible on the ventilator even when her fingers/toes are turning black and blue from the vasopressors.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Acanthus
You mean the IRS which has over 99% compliance with less than 2% overhead?

If they could get health insurance anywhere NEAR that figure americans would be better off.

Does that 2% overhead include the cost of:
Court time for IRS judgments
Attorneys fees for prosecuting
Lobbying costs for everytime someone wants to change part of the tax code
Costs of every taxpayer in the U.S. filing a tax return

I'm just saying that maybe that number isn't as low as you'd think. The IRS puts a lot of their processing costs on others. They also do not audit every single tax return either.

I doubt any government agency has overhead that low.

Lawyers would be on retainer, the IRS has no significant lobby, telefile and e-file have tremendously reduced the cost of filing.

I dont like the IRS, i dont think anyone does, but they do a damn good job of making sure damn near everyone pays.

Actually, the court system and the prison system do a good job of making sure people pay. Your 2% figure almost certainly doesn't include the costs of these systems. Nor does it include the costs of hiring a tax accountant or buying Turbo Tax.

I'm not saying the IRS does or does not do a good job. I'm just saying that they're very unlikely anywhere near as cost effective as you claim. A National Health Care Administration isn't going to have 2% overhead either.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
The biggest thing I really don't want to see is a physicians salary get axed through all of this. If you send a doctor through 4 years medical school + 3-6 years residency they had better well expect at least a 6 figure salary at the end of it.

It blows my mind that we are now saying we need more physicians, but the cost of education has increased and physicians salaries are at risk and continued risk of falling. Seems very counter-intuitive. Physicians, as a whole, are not the problem. Yes, there are some docs that should not be docs, but a guy operating on someones brain should have an income of $700k/yr. The average family doctor makes about $135k, a surgeon about $250k and if you specialize in something different it might be more. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

So reducing artificial restrictions on the number of physicians is a bad thing? Build more medical schools and let as many qualified people in as possible. Physicians salaries may go down, but tough shit. Let the free market, not the AMA, decide what physicians are worth.

It's already happening, several local medical schools have increased their freshman class anywhere from 10 to 25% compared to last year. However, what no one is asking is what about after medical school? If you pump out all these new med school grads, you're going to have to train them. Meanwhile, teaching hospitals have had massive budget CUTS from the government over the last 10 years. Check out what happened with the UK, when their med schools dumped out tons of new grads and their inept government didn't bother to increase funding to open new intern positions.

Hayabusa:
Don't bother with arguing some of the posters, they believe health care providers should make less than a UAW worker and Nurses should make less than a bus driver. As healthcare is a "right" therefore it should be free like "Freedom of speech" and the air we breathe.

People are complaining about the salaries of healthcare workers when the larger part of the costs are due to pharmaceuticals and keeping 85 year old grandma alive for as long as possible on the ventilator even when her fingers/toes are turning black and blue from the vasopressors.

I just think doctors should get what the market dictates and that there shouldn't be any artificial limits on supply. It may well be that they are worth every penny they make, which is fine. Or salary may be artificially inflated, in which case it should go down if the pool of doctors is larger.

It's not only about money, but care as well. Wouldn't a larger supply of doctors mean shorter wait times for patients, more choice in doctors, etc.? This all seems like good stuff to me.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

that's 2 trillion over 10 years, which is 200 billion a year.

 

[kitkat22]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

that's 2 trillion over 10 years, which is 200 billion a year.

I guess there goes my salary

How big is the health care industry anyway? $6 trillion? 10? I tried to find out online, but google only turned up the 2T over the next 10 years. I really want to know what percentage that 2T is of the actual pie. If it's like Obama's token 100 million then there needs to be some serious shakeup.

 

[kitkat22]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: cscpianoman
The biggest thing I really don't want to see is a physicians salary get axed through all of this. If you send a doctor through 4 years medical school + 3-6 years residency they had better well expect at least a 6 figure salary at the end of it.

It blows my mind that we are now saying we need more physicians, but the cost of education has increased and physicians salaries are at risk and continued risk of falling. Seems very counter-intuitive. Physicians, as a whole, are not the problem. Yes, there are some docs that should not be docs, but a guy operating on someones brain should have an income of $700k/yr. The average family doctor makes about $135k, a surgeon about $250k and if you specialize in something different it might be more. Doesn't sound unreasonable to me. There is roughly, 750,000 docs in the US right now, average salary is $250k put the two together and it equals $200 billion. Considering, the health care industry is talking about cuts worth $2T that $200 billion is a fairly small chunk of the actual cost of medical care.

So reducing artificial restrictions on the number of physicians is a bad thing? Build more medical schools and let as many qualified people in as possible. Physicians salaries may go down, but tough shit. Let the free market, not the AMA, decide what physicians are worth.

It's already happening, several local medical schools have increased their freshman class anywhere from 10 to 25% compared to last year. However, what no one is asking is what about after medical school? If you pump out all these new med school grads, you're going to have to train them. Meanwhile, teaching hospitals have had massive budget CUTS from the government over the last 10 years. Check out what happened with the UK, when their med schools dumped out tons of new grads and their inept government didn't bother to increase funding to open new intern positions.

Hayabusa:
Don't bother with arguing some of the posters, they believe health care providers should make less than a UAW worker and Nurses should make less than a bus driver. As healthcare is a "right" therefore it should be free like "Freedom of speech" and the air we breathe.

People are complaining about the salaries of healthcare workers when the larger part of the costs are due to pharmaceuticals and keeping 85 year old grandma alive for as long as possible on the ventilator even when her fingers/toes are turning black and blue from the vasopressors.

I just think doctors should get what the market dictates and that there shouldn't be any artificial limits on supply. It may well be that they are worth every penny they make, which is fine. Or salary may be artificially inflated, in which case it should go down if the pool of doctors is larger.

It's not only about money, but care as well. Wouldn't a larger supply of doctors mean shorter wait times for patients, more choice in doctors, etc.? This all seems like good stuff to me.

I have nothing wrong with allowing free market forces dictate what goes on in terms of doctor's pay, but if they are going to drop doc's take-home they had better come up with a good way to help pay down some of their debt. I am looking at about 300k of debt when I graduate in two years. I plan on becoming a surgeon, which will work in paying the loans off, but if someone wants to do primary care they are pretty much hosed because of education costs.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: cscpianoman

I have nothing wrong with allowing free market forces dictate what goes on in terms of doctor's pay, but if they are going to drop doc's take-home they had better come up with a good way to help pay down some of their debt. I am looking at about 300k of debt when I graduate in two years. I plan on becoming a surgeon, which will work in paying the loans off, but if someone wants to do primary care they are pretty much hosed because of education costs.

EXACTLY! And to add insult to injury, if you make over $80K per year, you cannot even deduct the interest off your student loans. So hey, let's cut primary care docs salaries to $50K per year, many of us are going to default on our $200K+ student loans. (Well, you can only default so long, as they can garnish your wages for default student loans AND you can't erase it with a BK) There are only 2 ways out of student loans: DIAF or become permanently disabled.