Healthcare Industry to Propose $2 trillion in cost cuts

[miketheidiot]

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?

highly inelastic demand + monopolistic markets.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Too little, too late. We need universal single payer insurance plan.

K. I think the single payer should be Haliburton.

Why would we outsource such a huge system to a foreign company?

Alright, how about KBR instead?

 

[Phokus]

I like how government health insurance programs have an overhead around 1 percent and private insurance has around 20-25 percent and conservatives have the gall to say government health insurance is 'inefficient'.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I like how government health insurance programs have an overhead around 1 percent and private insurance has around 20-25 percent and conservatives have the gall to say government health insurance is 'inefficient'.

Well I'm not particularly conservative or liberal. I happen to belong to the party of "don't do stupid stuff".

First I doubt that the true overhead is anything like 1%, but even if true it's largely because they foist the costs of doing business onto the health care providers, which is passed onto you and consequently private insurance. I see it first hand every day.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: 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.

It could take what would be profits and use it to subsidize more expensive people, allowing everyone to be covered, along with pre-existing conditions.

2 is nonsense.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I like how government health insurance programs have an overhead around 1 percent and private insurance has around 20-25 percent and conservatives have the gall to say government health insurance is 'inefficient'.

Perhaps you should read the entire thread before responding. People have addressed that claim as bunk.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: 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.

It could take what would be profits and use it to subsidize more expensive people, allowing everyone to be covered, along with pre-existing conditions.

2 is nonsense.

Yea, the whopping 2% profit margin healthcare providers make will really do good to subsidize lazy bums who lead unhealthy lifestyles.

 

[Starbuck1975]

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

The problem with Medicare is that the number of Paul's extracting benefits from the system will exceed the rate at which Peter is refilling the coffers, to the extent that the system will be bankrupt before Peter gets a chance to benefit from it.

Once step further, Medicare actually encourages abuse of the health care system, as cost is no longer a deterrent to prevent individuals from unnecessarily seeking medical attention. Of course, there are people out there who do need certain medical attention, and for which accessibility should not be an issue.

Similarly, how do you penalize those whose lifestyle choices are also placing a strain on the health care system.

There are many dimensions to this debate...I don't think privatized insurance is the solution...I don't think government solutions such as Medicare are the solution...there has to be an incentive based balance between the two, with competition serving to lower costs for all...my only fear with a government solution is that it will ultimately rely on significant taxpayer revenue streams to artificially remain competitive with the private sector.

 

[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.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Shortass

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: rchiu
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.

I hope you're kidding.

Nope I am not, and I am not the only one thinking that way. WSJ

Quote:

The White House's role in restructuring Chrysler has sent a shudder through the community of lawyers and lenders in the field of bankruptcy and corporate workouts. Critics complain that the administration has violated a bedrock principle of American capitalism and unfairly demonized financial firms that are vital to the functioning of the economy and its eventual recovery.

Yeah, and later in the article: "Many of the lenders believed the administration wouldn't let Chrysler file for bankruptcy. "The plan was to call the government's bluff. The game was to game the government," said a manager of a distressed-debt fund."

Creditors were attempting to force Chrysler to pay back the full amount of their debt, assuming the government would bail out the 'too big to fail' automaker. They were wrong and now they're butthurt because Chrysler is going to be forced to liquidate like any other normal business would under the capitalistic model and the creditors won't get their money back. Boo fucking hoo.

mmmmm...mmmmm that right there was some goood pwnage

:thumbsup:

Yeah Obama pwns all, I know, he should with billions and billions of dollar in the Fed and politicians and media in his pocket.

The question is, should the government go around and pwns companies like the health care industry and the car industry or let capitalism work. Maybe America should borrow some play from Hugo Chavez's play book and just take over what ever company/industry the government deem bad for the people.

 

[Nebor]

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.

I might agree with you if they were making money off of someone's continued suffering, and their profits increased the more that someone suffered. But they're actually profiting from ENDING suffering, kind of like Dr. Schol's gel pads, or Serta mattresses.

 

[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.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

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.

I might agree with you if they were making money off of someone's continued suffering, and their profits increased the more that someone suffered. But they're actually profiting from ENDING suffering, kind of like Dr. Schol's gel pads, or Serta mattresses.

I see some ethical problems with "nobody move and nobody gets hurt" health care.

They have effectively priced themselves out of 30% of the population. Call it mismanagment, call it greed, call it whatever you like. The system clearly does not work, and thats the bottom line.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Nebor

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.

I might agree with you if they were making money off of someone's continued suffering, and their profits increased the more that someone suffered. But they're actually profiting from ENDING suffering, kind of like Dr. Schol's gel pads, or Serta mattresses.

I see some ethical problems with "nobody move and nobody gets hurt" health care.

They have effectively priced themselves out of 30% of the population. Call it mismanagment, call it greed, call it whatever you like. The system clearly does not work, and thats the bottom line.

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

 

[theeedude]

We can vote to make it a right. In fact, we just voted someone in who thinks it should be.

 

[trooper11]

Ill believe it when I see it, thats all I have to say about government run health care.

Some of you obviosuly have not had the priveledge of enjoying government run groups like SSI, the IRS, etc. As much hope as you would put in the government, in the end the system isnt run any better, it just isnt exposed as much as the private sector gets exposed.

Once you realize that, then it just comes down to if you trust your government or companies to run various markets. If you trust the government more, then so be it, Im just saying I dont think they have earned that trust.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: trooper11
Ill believe it when I see it, thats all I have to say about government run health care.

Some of you obviosuly have not had the priveledge of enjoying government run groups like SSI, the IRS, etc. As much hope as you would put in the government, in the end the system isnt run any better, it just isnt exposed as much as the private sector gets exposed.

Once you realize that, then it just comes down to if you trust your government or companies to run various markets. If you trust the government more, then so be it, Im just saying I dont think they have earned that trust.

Government seems to be better at not being inefficient like the free market is when it comes to healthcare:

Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Nebor

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.

I might agree with you if they were making money off of someone's continued suffering, and their profits increased the more that someone suffered. But they're actually profiting from ENDING suffering, kind of like Dr. Schol's gel pads, or Serta mattresses.

I see some ethical problems with "nobody move and nobody gets hurt" health care.

They have effectively priced themselves out of 30% of the population. Call it mismanagment, call it greed, call it whatever you like. The system clearly does not work, and thats the bottom line.

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

Technically i can beat you to near death with a club under that logic. There is nothing in the bill of rights that says i'm not allowed to.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: trooper11
Ill believe it when I see it, thats all I have to say about government run health care.

Some of you obviosuly have not had the priveledge of enjoying government run groups like SSI, the IRS, etc. As much hope as you would put in the government, in the end the system isnt run any better, it just isnt exposed as much as the private sector gets exposed.

Once you realize that, then it just comes down to if you trust your government or companies to run various markets. If you trust the government more, then so be it, Im just saying I dont think they have earned that trust.

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.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: trooper11
Ill believe it when I see it, thats all I have to say about government run health care.

Some of you obviosuly have not had the priveledge of enjoying government run groups like SSI, the IRS, etc. As much hope as you would put in the government, in the end the system isnt run any better, it just isnt exposed as much as the private sector gets exposed.

Once you realize that, then it just comes down to if you trust your government or companies to run various markets. If you trust the government more, then so be it, Im just saying I dont think they have earned that trust.

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.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: trooper11
Ill believe it when I see it, thats all I have to say about government run health care.

Some of you obviosuly have not had the priveledge of enjoying government run groups like SSI, the IRS, etc. As much hope as you would put in the government, in the end the system isnt run any better, it just isnt exposed as much as the private sector gets exposed.

Once you realize that, then it just comes down to if you trust your government or companies to run various markets. If you trust the government more, then so be it, Im just saying I dont think they have earned that trust.

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.

 

[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?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

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

If only. You need to read David Cay Johnston on this - he exposes how the very wealthy get away with murder in tax avoidance. Hundreds of billions of taxes are lost.