-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why we must ration health care
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yeah, because Stossel is "just" a blogger... :roll:
0marTheZealot
Golden Member
We need to divorce the notion that insurance and healthcare have to be intertwined. This is what's killing the healthcare debate. Insurance just doesn't work for healthcare because of the nature of the product. You cannot afford to not have insurance, unlike every other type of insurance. Taking a risk on your house, car, boat is far different than taking a risk with your life. This is why the notion of health insurance should simply evaporate.
Secondly, I ask, why can nearly every other industrialized country provide healthcare to all their citizens, at a lower price, and provide that healthcare at a higher level of care than the United States? Are we that fundamentally stupid? Is our government so inept that it can't do what literally 40 other countries can? The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that our government is hopelessly corrupt. Our system of government inevitably leads to corruption. A 2-party state is probably the worst democracy you can imagine. With the parliamentary system of Europe, people are forced to cooperate together and if they fail to deliver, they can very easily be outed. In our system, you only have two choices and our politicians jury-rig the elections (through districting rights) to maintain their election status. Finally, there's no incentive to cooperate because a simple majority will work in most cases. It leads to massive amounts of corruption because those that make policy can stick earmarks and riders into the bills and either buy votes that way or sweeten the pot for their own state/district. It's sick and it has to change.
Secondly, I ask, why can nearly every other industrialized country provide healthcare to all their citizens, at a lower price, and provide that healthcare at a higher level of care than the United States? Are we that fundamentally stupid? Is our government so inept that it can't do what literally 40 other countries can? The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that our government is hopelessly corrupt. Our system of government inevitably leads to corruption. A 2-party state is probably the worst democracy you can imagine. With the parliamentary system of Europe, people are forced to cooperate together and if they fail to deliver, they can very easily be outed. In our system, you only have two choices and our politicians jury-rig the elections (through districting rights) to maintain their election status. Finally, there's no incentive to cooperate because a simple majority will work in most cases. It leads to massive amounts of corruption because those that make policy can stick earmarks and riders into the bills and either buy votes that way or sweeten the pot for their own state/district. It's sick and it has to change.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
"Individual rates" would put it back into the INSURANCE realm. It would put like persons of risk in each pool thus allowing the users to see more of their own costs.
:roll: - where does one get it now? That's right - they don't - OR they are on a gov't program that already exists. However, maintenence of these sorts of chronic yet clearly manageable items shouldn't be INSURANCE items anyway. If these sorts of things were outside of our catch all "insurance" system it would allow INSURANCE rates to be more manageable for those on the lower end for catastrophic illness. Diabetes is VERY manageable with a bit of individual attention by the person. Most Diabetics I know eat very poorly, don't exercise, and as a result take too much medication.
Yes, and? Do you really think because some people don't take an active part in their health that means the rest of us must be forced to foot the bill? I don't. It's asinine. Also, IF we had an actual INSURANCE system in our health care system - it would make room for "management" programs that people with these "chronic" problems to take part in and it'd be much cheaper. Example being - if a person had chronic X and was poor and/or unemployed - they could join chronic X program for a fee - which would be much less money than having to buy into a whole "insurance" program of today. But nah - lets not do something quite that rational - lets instead let the Fed take it all over and bill everyone.
Again - you fail to remove your blinders. This isn't "tough shit" you twit. "picking" is more about the level of INSURANCE you want to care to avert your risk of catastrophic illness's costs. You have to stop thinking in terms of what exists today, because it's not INSURANCE. Again, you need to stop ASSuming and start thinking. I've stated I want the middle man removed, but I sure as hell don't want the gov't inserted in their place. We need to get back to having client- doctor care and the way to do that is by changing "insurance" back to INSURANCE and having people actively participate in their normal care instead of just passing it all onto everyone else.
No it's not. America wasn't founded on the idea of cradle to grave. We removed ourselves from such a heavy handed gov't. It is not society's responsibility to pay for everyone else's care no matter how many times you libs try to claim it is. I don't know why I spend as much time on this with the likes of you - especially when you clearly aren't taking this seriously(re: deranged Ayn Rand quip and asinine comparison to Somalia).
From the ABCnews blog:
Ah, yes, blame Medicare for being defrauded. Blame the victim mentality here. We can't possibly fault the provider or patient for trying to defraud Medicare right? I also argue that how much of the private insurance "fraud prevention" is simply profit-driven? When it comes to private insurance, we're not simply asking "Is this procedure/treatment medically sound and necessary?", we also have to ask "Is this profitable to our bottom line?". I'd rather have the utility/resource decisions based by "good of the community" over "Is this going to prevent me from getting my BMW?".
Well, the solutions to this is easy, but politically difficult due to the massive lobbying. First, step up enforcement and punishment for medicare fraud. Cheating the IRS carries a hefty penalty, and they're damn good at catching the fraudsters. Copy their playbook. That should help bring down the costs. Second, create a REAL reform into the provider system for transparency. There's absolutely no logical justification for our current culture of ambiguous and complex billing practices. They're the source of loopholes for fraudsters.
So what's inherently bad with Medicare again?
Ah, yes, blame Medicare for being defrauded. Blame the victim mentality here. We can't possibly fault the provider or patient for trying to defraud Medicare right? I also argue that how much of the private insurance "fraud prevention" is simply profit-driven? When it comes to private insurance, we're not simply asking "Is this procedure/treatment medically sound and necessary?", we also have to ask "Is this profitable to our bottom line?". I'd rather have the utility/resource decisions based by "good of the community" over "Is this going to prevent me from getting my BMW?".
Well, the solutions to this is easy, but politically difficult due to the massive lobbying. First, step up enforcement and punishment for medicare fraud. Cheating the IRS carries a hefty penalty, and they're damn good at catching the fraudsters. Copy their playbook. That should help bring down the costs. Second, create a REAL reform into the provider system for transparency. There's absolutely no logical justification for our current culture of ambiguous and complex billing practices. They're the source of loopholes for fraudsters.
So what's inherently bad with Medicare again?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
You've never explained how you are going to get more and cover everyone and have it all cost so much less. The driving costs are the state of the art, not increasing profits.
How in realistic, workable ways are you saying this is going to happen? Let me guess, you aren't.
Xellos2099
Platinum Member
Our cost of living and standard of living in USA is much high then most of the country in the world. Naturally, health care is going to be more expensive as well.
And how much wealthier are we as a nation and how big is our GDP relative to any of these other industrialized nations? Yeah, I thought so...case closed.
If you hate our form of govt so much and would prefer Europe better, I suggest you pack your sh!t immediately and there's even a summer sale fare to boot. A few years of watching 55% of your net income go to mostly corrupt socialist countries with UHC among other entitlements will change your tune fast. For the record, my inlaws are from Spain.
How does that make the already inefficient system "more efficient"? You're adding even more complexity and de-leveraging the consumer against the suppliers. The reason why risks are pooled broadly is to put economies of scale into the system. Risk groups are intimately intertwined.
Hence, my support for UHC. A massive healthcare program will have the clout to slowly adjust behavioral prevention and have eonomies of scale to deal with chronic/preventative medition at cost-effective level. The "management" program you suggest does not exist, because 1) it's not profitable for the provider and 2) the program cannot be sustainable because the your patients won't be able to pay for the costs without bringing a broader risk "pool".
Your ideal for client-doctor care is simply not possible. Health care is only going to be more complex as treatment becomes more advanced. We will always need a "middle-man" to help the patient navigate the system. What we don't need is a profit-driven "middle-man".
Ah, the typical libertarian insanity. Only a true sociopath can follow that path and think it's the "right" view.
The real-debate with health care reform is this. Do we treat our health care as a consumer commodity or a public utility. Most developed countries pick the latter. Why we don't share their view, I have no idea.
Xellos2099
Platinum Member
Because we are one of the most advanced nation in medical technology that money can buy in the whole planet and we did perfectly fine as a nation during its golden age without UHC?
Case closed? You mean case closed on how idiotic our current system is? Our peers are providing services more efficient than we do? Since we have larger GDP than our peers, our expenditure percentage should be LOWER, but it isn't....
Hahaha... I can't even stop laughing at rest of your post. Your attitude is exactly what's stopping us from making progress. The "corrupt socialist countries" are providing better care in general than our "awesome lobbyist infested government".
Xellos2099
Platinum Member
If the socialist nation health care system is so great, how come many peoelp from to US to receive their most important surgery?
JohnnyGage
Senior member
Because it's cheaper when you pay cash and those hospitals compete for patients. Oh wait.....
That 40 - 50 million uninsured figure is a complete lie.
About 9.5 million are non-U.S. citizens (i.e. illegals). Another 17 million live in households where income is > $50k/year that could afford at least a basic plan but choose not to purchase coverage. 18 million out of the total 46 million or so "uninsured" are between 18 - 34 yrs old, a demographic that spends less than $1000/year on healthcare, is generally in good health or chooses not to purchase it. And only 30% of those who become uninsured in any given year remain uninsured after 12 months with 50% of them regaining coverage within 4 months.
The real number of people chronically uninsured is in the 12 - 14 million range.
Xellos2099
Platinum Member
We don't have access to it because it is limited resources. I doubt the 40+million will have access to the cutting edge technology either if us switch to UHC system. The current state of the government can't afford it as is, so there will be cut and where to start? The most expensive equipment and technology.
You will have to thank all those lawsuit lawyer for high medical cost. Nowhere else in the planet you can be sue by serving hot coffee. Before the raise of the medical insurance and all those wrongful death lawsuit, seek medical treatment was affordable to general public. However, after the existence of the medically insurance, hospital visit start becoming more and more expensive. As for lawsuit, people need to face the facts that sometime death happen even to the best of doctor and many of the times there were no accident involved.
You will have to thank all those lawsuit lawyer for high medical cost. Nowhere else in the planet you can be sue by serving hot coffee. Before the raise of the medical insurance and all those wrongful death lawsuit, seek medical treatment was affordable to general public. However, after the existence of the medically insurance, hospital visit start becoming more and more expensive. As for lawsuit, people need to face the facts that sometime death happen even to the best of doctor and many of the times there were no accident involved.
I debunk your 40+ million uninsured Dem talking point with statistics showing otherwise and that's the best you can say?
And the thing that pisses me off most about those facts are that 25% are illegals -- who should be completely denied care so they'll self deport. Yet this admin is seriously thinking of covering them through UHC.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
