Healthcare Doubles Massachusetts firms Taxes - I'm shocked *SHOCKED*
1-20-2013
is when Brian Rosman from the state�s largest health consumer group,
Health Care for All said (presumably with a straight face):
�We think this is a good temporary solution to get the state over the
really severe funding crunch".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :^D ROTFFLMMFAO!!!!!!!
No, seriously. He *really* said that the taxes would be doubled
*TEMPORARILY*....as though he really believes that :^D
Hold on to your wallets folks...EVERYBODY's taxes are going up, UP, *UP*
especially if the liberal Messiah's health care debacle gets passed.
BTW - the comments following the the article are precious:
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/11/26/health_pushes_firms_tax_up/
Health pushes firms� tax up
State to double levy to keep fund solvent in 2010
'MAJOR BLOW TO EMPLOYERS' Michael Widmer of the Mass. taxpayers group
said the state has one of the highest jobless insurance costs in the
nation.
By Kay Lazar
Globe Staff / November 26, 2009
The Patrick administration intends to double a key tax on employers in
an effort to save health insurance for thousands of laid-off
Massachusetts workers, after a fund to help them has been virtually
drained by the highest unemployment rates in three decades.
The administration�s plan would also require the unemployed to shoulder
more costs for certain doctors� visits.
The emergency measures would keep the Medical Security Trust Fund
solvent through the end of 2010 and preserve roughly $300 million in
federal Medicaid reimbursements that Massachusetts would lose if the
program failed, Labor and Workforce Development Secretary Suzanne Bump
said in a telephone interview yesterday.
�There are hundreds of millions of dollars of federal reimbursement that
hang in the balance,�� Bump said.
Without changes, the trust fund, which is the pool of money that pays
for health insurance for the unemployed, would finish next year more
than $80 million in deficit.
The health insurance program, which is funded solely by a tax on
employers, helps lower- and middle-income people who fail to qualify for
other state-subsidized health care programs designed for the poor. The
program covers roughly 34,000 unemployed residents.
Businesses pay $16.80 per employee, per year into the trust fund, a tax
that will double to $33.60 under the administration�s plan. To cushion
that impact, the administration also intends to ask the Legislature to
lessen the planned increase in another tax businesses are required to
contribute for unemployment benefits.
Businesses were facing an automatic 40 percent increase in that second
tax, triggered by an increase in unemployment benefit payouts. Instead
of hiking the tax as much, the Patrick administration will propose
borrowing the difference from the federal government.
�We are aware that the ability of the business community to shoulder
these burdens is finite,�� Bump said. �We really felt the need to offset
an increase in the Medical Security Program contribution with a lower
[unemployment tax] rate for next year.��
The proposal to lessen the planned increase in unemployment taxes, from
40 percent to roughly 30 percent, would need legislative approval. Even
if passed, employers would still end up with a net increase in what they
now pay.
A three-member board - Patrick�s commissioners of insurance, Medicaid,
and unemployment assistance - are scheduled Monday to approve the plan
to double the business tax to keep the health insurance program afloat.
That increase would take effect in January.
Yesterday, business leaders seemed resigned to the hikes.
�It�s a good-faith effort by the administration to try and cushion the
impact here, but it�s still going to be a major blow to employers,��
said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, a business group. �We already have the highest unemployment
insurance costs in the nation, we and the state of Washington.��
The administration�s plan would also require the unemployed to pay more
for doctors� visits, if they choose providers deemed by the state to be
a higher cost, lower-quality caregiver. However, patient copayments
would remain level if they remain with preapproved providers.
The state�s largest health consumer group, Health Care for All,
expressed mixed emotions over this cost-saving approach.
�We think this is a good temporary solution to get the state over the
really severe funding crunch,�� said the group�s research director,
Brian Rosman. �Given the really difficult budget challenges, we see this
shared responsibility solution with businesses also paying more, as an
attractive option.��
But Rosman questioned the criteria that will be used to determine which
physicians are lower-quality and higher-cost providers.
�We want to make sure that patients have enough information to make
informed choices, based on their individual needs, and not just the
copay differentials,�� Rosman said. �We also think the providers should
have full knowledge of the criteria used to place them into the tiers.��
A report last week by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, an
independent think tank, found that the Medical Security Trust Fund would
not be going broke if taxes on employers had kept pace with inflation,
as required by the 1988 law that created the program, the report stated.
But Bump disputed that reading of the law.
She said the fees the state charged businesses would have been
sufficient if the recession had not dragged on for so long and if
Congress had not repeatedly extended unemployment benefits. Those
extensions have drained about $60 million from the fund since July 2008,
according to the state.
______________________________________________________________
There is no such thing as "free" health care.
Sid9
"1-20-2013" <0120...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote in message
news:bvCdndMNecyNNZPW...@rcn.net...
> The most pathetic part of the following article in todays Boston Globe is
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :^D ROTFFLMMFAO!!!!!!!
>
> No, seriously. He *really* said that the taxes would be doubled
> *TEMPORARILY*....as though he really believes that :^D
>
> Hold on to your wallets folks...EVERYBODY's taxes are going up, UP, *UP*
> especially if the liberal Messiah's health care debacle gets passed.
>
> BTW - the comments following the the article are precious:
>
> http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/11/26/health_pushes_firms_tax_up/
>
> State to double levy to keep fund solvent in 2010
>
> 'MAJOR BLOW TO EMPLOYERS' Michael Widmer of the Mass. taxpayers group said
> the state has one of the highest jobless insurance costs in the nation.
> By Kay Lazar
> Globe Staff / November 26, 2009
>
> The Patrick administration intends to double a key tax on employers in an
> effort to save health insurance for thousands of laid-off Massachusetts
> workers, after a fund to help them has been virtually drained by the
> highest unemployment rates in three decades.
>
> more costs for certain doctors� visits.
>
> The emergency measures would keep the Medical Security Trust Fund solvent
> through the end of 2010 and preserve roughly $300 million in federal
> Medicaid reimbursements that Massachusetts would lose if the program
> failed, Labor and Workforce Development Secretary Suzanne Bump said in a
> telephone interview yesterday.
>
> hang in the balance,�� Bump said.
>
> Without changes, the trust fund, which is the pool of money that pays for
> health insurance for the unemployed, would finish next year more than $80
> million in deficit.
>
> The health insurance program, which is funded solely by a tax on
> employers, helps lower- and middle-income people who fail to qualify for
> other state-subsidized health care programs designed for the poor. The
> program covers roughly 34,000 unemployed residents.
>
> Businesses pay $16.80 per employee, per year into the trust fund, a tax
> lessen the planned increase in another tax businesses are required to
> contribute for unemployment benefits.
>
> Businesses were facing an automatic 40 percent increase in that second
> tax, triggered by an increase in unemployment benefit payouts. Instead of
> hiking the tax as much, the Patrick administration will propose borrowing
> the difference from the federal government.
>
> burdens is finite,�� Bump said. �We really felt the need to offset an
>
> The proposal to lessen the planned increase in unemployment taxes, from 40
> percent to roughly 30 percent, would need legislative approval. Even if
> passed, employers would still end up with a net increase in what they now
> pay.
>
> double the business tax to keep the health insurance program afloat. That
> increase would take effect in January.
>
> Yesterday, business leaders seemed resigned to the hikes.
>
> impact here, but it�s still going to be a major blow to employers,�� said
> in the nation, we and the state of Washington.��
>
> The administration�s plan would also require the unemployed to pay more
> for doctors� visits, if they choose providers deemed by the state to be a
> remain level if they remain with preapproved providers.
>
>
> really severe funding crunch,�� said the group�s research director, Brian
> Rosman. �Given the really difficult budget challenges, we see this shared
>
> But Rosman questioned the criteria that will be used to determine which
> physicians are lower-quality and higher-cost providers.
>
> full knowledge of the criteria used to place them into the tiers.��
>
> A report last week by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, an
> independent think tank, found that the Medical Security Trust Fund would
> not be going broke if taxes on employers had kept pace with inflation, as
> required by the 1988 law that created the program, the report stated.
>
> But Bump disputed that reading of the law.
>
> She said the fees the state charged businesses would have been sufficient
> if the recession had not dragged on for so long and if Congress had not
> repeatedly extended unemployment benefits. Those extensions have drained
> about $60 million from the fund since July 2008, according to the state.
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> There is no such thing as "free" health care.
.
.
No one except RRR fools expects health care to be free
James Meyers
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hemhbo$ku5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
over.
Jim
Jerry Okamura
for the service?
wy
> The most pathetic part of the following article in todays Boston Globe
> Health Care for All said (presumably with a straight face):
>
> really severe funding crunch".
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :^D ROTFFLMMFAO!!!!!!!
>
> No, seriously. He *really* said that the taxes would be doubled
> *TEMPORARILY*....as though he really believes that :^D
>
> Hold on to your wallets folks...EVERYBODY's taxes are going up, UP, *UP*
> especially if the liberal Messiah's health care debacle gets passed.
>
> BTW - the comments following the the article are precious:
>
>
> Health pushes firms’ tax up
> State to double levy to keep fund solvent in 2010
>
> 'MAJOR BLOW TO EMPLOYERS' Michael Widmer of the Mass. taxpayers group
> said the state has one of the highest jobless insurance costs in the
> nation.
>
> By Kay Lazar
> Globe Staff / November 26, 2009
>
> The Patrick administration intends to double a key tax on employers in
> an effort to save health insurance for thousands of laid-off
> Massachusetts workers, after a fund to help them has been virtually
> drained by the highest unemployment rates in three decades.
And who caused the highest unemployment rates in three decades? Why
that wascally Bush, George W. Remember how the economy all came
crashing down back in September 2008, hmm? If you didn't think that
was going to have a long-lasting, widespread domino effect, then
you're living in la-la land. Never mind Obama, thank the Bush for
your misery and high taxes now - he's the one who really got that ball
rolling under his watch.
>
> Businesses pay $16.80 per employee, per year into the trust fund, a tax
> that will double to $33.60 under the administration’s plan.
What!? From a lowly $16.80 per employee per year to a staggering
$33.60 per employee per year? Why that's crippling, positively
crippling! You know, maybe there might be a case to be made against a
tax increase if it was being increased to $33.60 per employee per WEEK
or maybe even per MONTH, but per YEAR? And a business can't cover
that? Don't make me guffaw.
Not Sure
The left is always so generous with other people's money :)
silky
Sid9
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OyDPm.75160$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
.
Health care is being paid for by premiums and taxes.
In the future healthcare will be paid for by premiums, taxes, and penalties
for the freeloaders who refuse to buy health insurance, who nonetheless will
get health care.
Healthcare is not free.
Hope for the Heartless
First Post <last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote:
> There is no such as anything being free that is given by the
> government. The taxpayers will always be the ones paying for
> anything. The only people that can claim that they receive anything
> for free are those that pay no taxes and that includes sales and
> excise taxes. That means even the poor help pay for it.
>
> Only the very simple minded believe that the government can somehow
> miraculously provide a product or a service that costs nothing to
> anyone.
That's true, as far as it goes. Everything costs. But often the cost
of doing the same thing one way is greater than doing it another way.
For instance, it's much less expensive to buy drinking water from the
local water company than to buy bottled water.
The *relative* cost of arranging for water service at your home is
*negative* compared to all alternatives except perhaps building your own
rainwater collection system. You'll save far more than enough to not
only provide yourself with enough to drink, but if you were generous, to
supply a few of your neighbors with safe, fresh, clean drinking water.
The evidence of not only other counties' experience but our own
demonstrates that there are economies of scale at work. If you have
health insurance, you are really buying health care in bulk, and you get
it at a cheaper cost than if you had gone to the hospital or doctor with
no insurance when you are sick. Just look at what your hospital bills
and what the insurance actually pays sometime. You'll see there's a
huge difference.
But even at that, our system is *grossly inefficient* by world
standards. We spend twice as much per capita and twice as much as a
percentage of GDP as most other industrialized countries. Most of us
get approximately the same value from that, as measured by outcomes. A
minority of us, roughly 15 percent -- those who are uninsured -- get
much worse outcomes than similar economic groups in those other
countries. It's shocking that Americans would tolerate this, but we do.
Or rather, conservatives do. Liberals have found this wasteful,
backward and inhumane system intolerable. We're going to fix it.
It's as if conservatives not only were demanding the right to drink only
their expensive bottled water, but were demanding that we do it too, and
opposing all efforts to build a public water company.
Screw them. They can have their bottled water and their overpriced
health care. The rest of us are going to have something better.
John Q Public
if you think you can provide healthcare for 33.60 per year your a buffoon!
Joe Irvin
<s...@above.com> wrote in message
news:6400h5hgj1ro1nsu4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:02:12 -0600, First Post
> <last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Only the very simple minded believe that the government can somehow
>>miraculously provide a product or a service that costs nothing to
>>anyone.
>
>
>
> When government tries to mitigate a "problem", yes it
> taxes---redistributes money
>
> One political ideology insists that if you allow people
> to 'keep their money"---that THEY will (somehow)
> channel money to places that arise to take it--thus
> providing the service they need.
This is true sometime people make mistakes and spend money unwisely. It
only affects them usually and the govt has safety nets to catch them. This
is less expensive than govt mandating. When the govt makes a mistake it
affects eveyone ... the FNMA/Freddie Mac fiasco.
> The other recognizes that greed and markets cannot (and
> have not) adequately provided the service needed to
> society---and thereby "taxes" to accomplish it.
If we are talking about medical care there is no free market ... govts
mandate insurance companies to cover certain things. Why no let insurance
companies offer a menu of things that it will cover and the individual pick
from them rather than having them mandated by govt. ... a young single male
wouldn't have any use for maternity care but he has to pay for it if he
wants insurance. Insurance companies are prevented from selling insurance
in different states, that isn't a free market, govt offering medical
insurance and only paying what they deem the procedures are worth
(medicade/medicare) distorts the market. We are a long way from a freer
market in health care. Where people have to pay for medical care for
themselves costs would probably decline except for maybe cutting edge
expermental medicine.
"By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own way,
service gets better, while prices fall.
"Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop around
and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They often give
customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing, but prices
don't. "In every other field of medicine, the price is going up faster than
consumer prices in general," says John Goodman of the National Center for
Policy Analysis. "But the price of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down
by 30 percent."
http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/09/more-health-insurance-is-not-t
How do you account for the price falling in a market that is a lot freer
than over regulated healthcare?
Society
> cannot exist for very long with a huge majority of
> their citizens dying, sick, and abandoned by
> capitalism.
Its capitalism that has been abandoned in favor of a highly regulated
healthcare industry where lawyers are free to go for the lotto type
settlements that causes unneeded tests and procedures for doctors to protect
themselves.
>
> So, it's to all our benefit--to spread the cost to ALL
> by reforming the system, and that would include
> regulation, and taxation. THose who buy (can afford)
> insurance wouldn't be shouldering the cost of millions
> who get "free" care in Emergency rooms.
>
> Since even lower incomes do pay state and local taxes
> (which in part fund health care in states)---they are
> involved in paying
Joe Irvin
Sid9
"Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:Uc-dnRtNtL2...@comporium.net...
.
Unregulated capitalism is a proven failure.
Unregulated capitalism is subject to booms and bust and is an unstable
system.
From the founding of the United States until 1929 the United states had a
financial panic on average every eighteen years.
After the Roosevelt Democratic New Deal we never had a major financial
collapse until 2008.
This collapse resulted from the progressive deregulation and anti-government
sentiment that started with Reagan and ended with bush,jr.
Those are the facts.
Sid9
"First Post" <last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote in message
news:pie0h51eo02787qe7...@4ax.com...
> I notice that you conveniently neglected any mention of several years
> of double digit unemployment and inflation thanks to your boy Jimmy
> Carter.
>
> And still, The US has always recovered from your so called financial
> collapses thus proving your dumbassed statement to be false. If
> capitalism was such a failure then the US would never have recovered
> from the first one.
>
> On the other hand socialism failed Russia to the point of total
> collapse and China is gravitating more and more towards capitalism
> each year.
The United States had a financial collapse or panic on average every
eighteen years from its founding until 1929.
Unfettered capitalism is as much a failure as communism.
Since 1932 after the regulations put in place by Roosevelt's democratic New
deal, there have been no major panics or collapses until the effects of
Republican Reagan's deregulation. This deregulation and denigration of our
government continued under HW Bush, and bush,jr the incompetent.
The economic collapse of 2008 was a direct result of Republican economic
policies.
pbj
How can the free market possibly work when doing without is not an
option, the need for care is quite often urgent, the consumer may well
be too debilitated or in too much pain to intelligently evaluate his
options, he lacks the medical expertise to understand what he needs or
is getting for his money, and he can't even compare prices?
> "By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own
> way, service gets better, while prices fall.
>
> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop
> around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They
> often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing,
> but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine, the price is going
> up faster than consumer prices in general," says John Goodman of the
> National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the price of Lasik surgery, on
> average, has gone down by 30 percent."
>
> http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/09/more-health-insurance-is-not-t
>
> How do you account for the price falling in a market that is a lot freer
> than over regulated healthcare?
Apples and oranges.
First, Lasik is elective. If you can't afford it, you can make do with a
$80 pair of glasses. That's a somewhat different case from someone badly
injured in an accident, or dying of a heart attack, or with a big bloody
tumor growing in their chest, etc.
Second, the procedure is comparatively straightforward so that Lasik
providers can tell the consumer in advance, right down to the dollar,
exactly what it will cost. This allows consumers to shop around, thus
exerting a downward pressure on prices. A procedure such as a course of
chemotherapy or open-heart surgery can entail many unexpected
complications and expenses, so that even well-meaning providers can't
provide prices in advance. A nasty side-effect of this is that consumers
can no longer compare prices between providers.
> Society
>> cannot exist for very long with a huge majority of their citizens
>> dying, sick, and abandoned by capitalism.
>
> Its capitalism that has been abandoned in favor of a highly regulated
> healthcare industry where lawyers are free to go for the lotto type
> settlements that causes unneeded tests and procedures for doctors to
> protect themselves.
The CBO concluded that tort reform would reduce our total bill by only
2%. I've been comparing notes with my neighbors ever since tort reform
was passed here in Texas and that's just about right - not a single
person I know saw any savings at all in their health insurance or even a
slowing in the rate of increase, let alone the drastic savings that were
so enthusiastically promised in the advertising blitz leading up to the
vote.
Jerry Okamura
"First Post" <last...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid> wrote in message
> Does that mean it cost you nothing at all? No. Everytime you buy
> fuel, new tires or renew your license plates you are paying for the
> priviledge of using the roads.
>
Apples and oranges. First of all once you build that interstate higheay,
the only cost is the upkeep of that highway. Second of all, building the
highway does not really affect our freedom, except perhaps to give us more
freedom. On the other hand, you will pay for that insurance until that
person dies, and you will also pay for someone who will enter this world.
So, the cost is never ending. And the cost per person has to rise, because
medical inflation will require the cost to rise. And since medical
inflation is between 8 to 10% per year, that means the cost of the insurance
will rise by at least that amount. And that also means that the cost of the
insurance will double in about 8years, and double again and again with each
intervening period of time. That is simply unsustainable. And the plan
also takes away peoples freedom and independence, which the highway trust
fund does not do. Building and maintaining these highways gives people more
fredom and independence not the other way around. Whereas, the healthcare
reform being proposed takes away our freedoms, and makes us more dependent
on someone else. . And no, the money you pay for all the taxes that are
attached to those things you mentioned are NOT for building highways, a good
percentage of that money is diverted to other uses.
>
> If it were "free" then why are they wanting to increase taxes in Mass.
> to pay for it?
That is the point. Some refer to the third party payment system as free
healthcare, when it is only free to the eprson who gets the care and does
not have to pay for it, but someone is paying for it.
>
> There is no such as anything being free that is given by the
> government. The taxpayers will always be the ones paying for
> anything. The only people that can claim that they receive anything
> for free are those that pay no taxes and that includes sales and
> excise taxes. That means even the poor help pay for it.
>
> Only the very simple minded believe that the government can somehow
> miraculously provide a product or a service that costs nothing to
> anyone.
>
If the government does not HAVE to pay. They WANT to pay.
Joe Irvin
You are the only one saying anything about 'unregulated' capitalism, I
didn't.
>
> From the founding of the United States until 1929 the United states had a
> financial panic on average every eighteen years.
I wouldn't call them a panic, but I understand what you are saying.
>
> After the Roosevelt Democratic New Deal we never had a major financial
> collapse until 2008.
So ... and after FDR's New Deal the Dow Jones Industrial didn't recover
until the mid 1950's. If I'm not mistaken the unemployment rate didn't go
below double digits until WWII.
>
> This collapse resulted from the progressive deregulation and
> anti-government sentiment that started with Reagan and ended with
> bush,jr.
No, it was touched off by the mortgage crisis which the govt had a hand in
since I think it was the Carter administration and culminating in the last
years of the Bush/Obama administrations.
>
> Those are the facts.
Some of the facts maybe but not all. You mentioned nothing about the
Smoot-Hawley tariff ... protectionism ... the Federal Reserve tightening
credit. These and many other facts you left ... things govt did to help the
depression along.
You mention nothing about the govt hand in the mortgage crisis that cause
this recession.
>
>
Joe Irvin
"pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fqadnU58CbzwHo3W...@supernews.com...
I'm not saying one should do without healthcare. Waiting until one actually
needs healthcare is being irresponsible ... nothing will help people who are
irresponsible. As far as being able to evaluate his options a consumer is
smart enough to do this. I have no expertise in how my car's engine works,
but I'm smart enough to take it to a mechanic that does. You don't seem to
give much credit to consumers of services.
>
>> "By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own
>> way, service gets better, while prices fall.
>>
>> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop
>> around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They
>> often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing,
>> but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine, the price is going
>> up faster than consumer prices in general," says John Goodman of the
>> National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the price of Lasik surgery, on
>> average, has gone down by 30 percent."
>>
>> http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/09/more-health-insurance-is-not-t
>>
>> How do you account for the price falling in a market that is a lot freer
>> than over regulated healthcare?
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> First, Lasik is elective. If you can't afford it, you can make do with a
> $80 pair of glasses. That's a somewhat different case from someone badly
> injured in an accident, or dying of a heart attack, or with a big bloody
> tumor growing in their chest, etc.
It is not apples and oranges ... its health care that is consumer driven
rather than govt and insurance driven. Where the consumer deals directly
with the doctor like in lasik and plastic surgery the costs have gone down
because the doctors have to compete. The consumer is paying for only what
he gets nothing more.
> Second, the procedure is comparatively straightforward so that Lasik
> providers can tell the consumer in advance, right down to the dollar,
> exactly what it will cost. This allows consumers to shop around, thus
> exerting a downward pressure on prices. A procedure such as a course of
> chemotherapy or open-heart surgery can entail many unexpected
> complications and expenses, so that even well-meaning providers can't
> provide prices in advance. A nasty side-effect of this is that consumers
> can no longer compare prices between providers.
You are talking about things that insurance should cover, an unforseen major
illnes/accident etc. Everyday healthcare like common colds/sore
throat/physicals etc should be the responsibility of the individual, just
like the everyday maintance of ones car is handled by the owner. One
doesn't use auto insurance for a lube and oil change. Of course if the
purchaser of a healthcare insurance policy were free to pick from a menu of
items covered he could opt for having colds/sore throat/physicals covered
... this policy would be more expensive then a healthcare policy that
covered only the unexpected illnesses and accidents. Even today some CVS's
stores have healthcare providers that have a menu of the common things they
will cover like sore throats/colds/ear ach for a set price. These are
usually cheaper than a doctors visit. Fed and State govt mandate things
that must be covered whether and individual needs them or not ... these have
to ge paid for. If an individual were free to shop for healthcare insurance
and buy only what he/she needed the price would probably fall, just like it
has when the patient and doctor contract with lasik and plastic surgery.
>
>> Society
>>> cannot exist for very long with a huge majority of their citizens
>>> dying, sick, and abandoned by capitalism.
>>
>> Its capitalism that has been abandoned in favor of a highly regulated
>> healthcare industry where lawyers are free to go for the lotto type
>> settlements that causes unneeded tests and procedures for doctors to
>> protect themselves.
>
> The CBO concluded that tort reform would reduce our total bill by only
> 2%. I've been comparing notes with my neighbors ever since tort reform
> was passed here in Texas and that's just about right - not a single
> person I know saw any savings at all in their health insurance or even a
> slowing in the rate of increase, let alone the drastic savings that were
> so enthusiastically promised in the advertising blitz leading up to the
> vote.
There was an influx of doctors into Texas when this happened though. This
isn't the only thing that will help lower costs. mandates by the State and
Fed govt raise the cost of insurance ... no letting insurance companies
compete among the states. Today we are told that we need a govt option in
our healthcare legislation because there is no competition ... its the govt
that disallows competiton among the states. Would it be fair to let the
govt which make the rules be a competitor? This is insane.
pbj
A French-style health care system will. Or German-style. Or
Canadian-style. Or just about anything but American-style.
> As far as being able to evaluate his options a consumer is smart enough
> to do this. I have no expertise in how my car's engine works, but I'm
> smart enough to take it to a mechanic that does.
There's a reason an honest mechanic is worth his weight in gold...
> You don't seem to give much credit to consumers of services.
If an insurance company needs a team of lawyers to write a contract,
then it's not unreasonable to expect a consumer to need a lawyer to
interpret the legalese and to spot all the traps and pitfalls.
>>> "By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own
>>> way, service gets better, while prices fall.
>>>
>>> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop
>>> around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business.
>>> They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps
>>> increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine, the
>>> price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," says John
>>> Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the price of
>>> Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."
>>>
>>> http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/09/more-health-insurance-is-not-t
>>>
>>> How do you account for the price falling in a market that is a lot
>>> freer than over regulated healthcare?
>>
>> Apples and oranges.
>>
>> First, Lasik is elective. If you can't afford it, you can make do with
>> a $80 pair of glasses. That's a somewhat different case from someone
>> badly injured in an accident, or dying of a heart attack, or with a big
>> bloody tumor growing in their chest, etc.
>
> It is not apples and oranges
Is, too. Lasik is optional. Non-elective care isn't optional and most
Americans believe that going without health insurance isn't an option,
either.
> ... its health care that is consumer driven rather than govt and
> insurance driven. Where the consumer deals directly with the doctor
> like in lasik and plastic surgery the costs have gone down because the
> doctors have to compete. The consumer is paying for only what he gets
> nothing more.
You must have missed the furore over those paying their own bills being
charged significantly more than Medicare and insurance patients.
>> Second, the procedure is comparatively straightforward so that Lasik
>> providers can tell the consumer in advance, right down to the dollar,
>> exactly what it will cost. This allows consumers to shop around, thus
>> exerting a downward pressure on prices. A procedure such as a course of
>> chemotherapy or open-heart surgery can entail many unexpected
>> complications and expenses, so that even well-meaning providers can't
>> provide prices in advance. A nasty side-effect of this is that
>> consumers can no longer compare prices between providers.
>
> You are talking about things that insurance should cover, an unforseen
> major illnes/accident etc.
What I replied to:
>>> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop
>>> around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business.
>>> They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps
>>> increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine,
>>> the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," says
>>> John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the
>>> Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."
The comparison here is Lasik to "every other field of medicine", not Lasik
to insurance.
> Everyday healthcare like common colds/sore throat/physicals etc should
> be the responsibility of the individual, just like the everyday
> maintance of ones car is handled by the owner.
I have no problem with that. My own preferred solution to the health
care problem would be a single-payer system providing only catastrophic
and some preventative coverage, and the poor would also be covered for
minor medical care.
> One doesn't use auto insurance for a lube and oil change. Of course if
> the purchaser of a healthcare insurance policy were free to pick from a
> menu of items covered he could opt for having colds/sore
> throat/physicals covered ... this policy would be more expensive then a
> healthcare policy that covered only the unexpected illnesses and
> accidents. Even today some CVS's stores have healthcare providers that
> have a menu of the common things they will cover like sore
> throats/colds/ear ach for a set price. These are usually cheaper than a
> doctors visit. Fed and State govt mandate things that must be covered
> whether and individual needs them or not
A whole lot of complaints might have something to do with that...
> ... these have to ge paid for. If an individual were free to shop for
> healthcare insurance and buy only what he/she needed the price would
> probably fall,
I wouldn't pin too much hope on that unless insurance plans also become
easier for consumers to comprehend and compare.
> just like it has when the patient and doctor contract with lasik and
> plastic surgery.
If prices have fallen for Lasik, it's most likely because of the tight
economy combined with the fact that Lasik is **OPTIONAL**.
>>> Society
>>>> cannot exist for very long with a huge majority of their citizens
>>>> dying, sick, and abandoned by capitalism.
>>>
>>> Its capitalism that has been abandoned in favor of a highly regulated
>>> healthcare industry where lawyers are free to go for the lotto type
>>> settlements that causes unneeded tests and procedures for doctors to
>>> protect themselves.
>>
>> The CBO concluded that tort reform would reduce our total bill by only
>> 2%. I've been comparing notes with my neighbors ever since tort reform
>> was passed here in Texas and that's just about right - not a single
>> person I know saw any savings at all in their health insurance or even
>> a slowing in the rate of increase, let alone the drastic savings that
>> were so enthusiastically promised in the advertising blitz leading up
>> to the vote.
>
> There was an influx of doctors into Texas when this happened though.
There was also an influx of doctors before tort reform was passed.
Compiled from statistics at the Texas Department of State Health Services
(http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/hprc/health.shtm and click on
"physicians"):
Year Physicians Growth
---- ---------- ------
1999 43934 5.8%
2000 46037 4.8%
2001 46718 1.5%
2002 47973 2.7%
2003 49710 3.6% <--- Tort reform took effect June 2003
2004 50264 1.1%
2005 51529 2.5%
2006 52345 1.6%
2007 53297 1.8%
2008 54915 3.0%
"Growth" is computed as the percentage change since the previous year's
study. Tort reform was signed into law in June 2003 and the figures for
that year were compiled in September so it's hard to make anything of the
3.6%.
The continuing climb before and after is probably the result of ongoing
growth in the general population. Whatever the cause, the doctors moving
into the state are almost entirely going to just a few wealthy counties.
This suggests that tort reform, even if it produces an increase in
physicians, might not benefit consumers/voters not living in wealthy
areas.
> This isn't the only thing that will help lower costs. mandates by the
> State and Fed govt raise the cost of insurance ... no letting insurance
> companies compete among the states. Today we are told that we need a
> govt option in our healthcare legislation because there is no
> competition ... its the govt that disallows competiton among the states.
Nevertheless we see the same insurance companies selling policies in
state after state. IMO the antitrust exemption granted by the
McCarran–Ferguson Act did far more to reduce competition.
> Would it be fair to let the govt which make the rules be a
> competitor?
Since when does the insurance industry care about playing "fair"?
> This is insane.
Not as insane as continuing to tolerate a 37th-rate health care system
that allows 45,000 Americans to die every year of treatable causes and
leaves the rest of us unsure if the insurance we've paid for will be
there when our own lives are on the line.
Joe Irvin
Really. "Fact 1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for
common cancers. Fact 2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than
Canadians. Fact 3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic
diseases than patients in other deeloped countries. Fact 4 Americans have
better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Fact 5. Lower
Income Americans ae in better health than comparable Canadians. Fact 6.
Americans spend less time waiting for care than paients in Canada and the
UK. Fact 7 People in countries with more government control of health care
are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70% of
German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and Brithish adults sasy their
helth systesm needs either 'fundamental change' or 'complete rebuilding.'
Fact 8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they redceie than
Canadians. Fact 9. Americans haave much better access to important new
technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the UK. Fact
10 Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care
innovations."
>
>> As far as being able to evaluate his options a consumer is smart enough
>> to do this. I have no expertise in how my car's engine works, but I'm
>> smart enough to take it to a mechanic that does.
>
> There's a reason an honest mechanic is worth his weight in gold...
True and Americans can figure out and be responsible for their own health
care.
>
>> You don't seem to give much credit to consumers of services.
>
> If an insurance company needs a team of lawyers to write a contract,
> then it's not unreasonable to expect a consumer to need a lawyer to
> interpret the legalese and to spot all the traps and pitfalls.
Who do you think writes the govt health care legislation? If you been
watching, a lot of the 'traps and pitfalls' are being pointed out, not to
mention the bureaucracy a govt run health care sets up.
>
>>>> "By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own
>>>> way, service gets better, while prices fall.
>>>>
>>>> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop
>>>> around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business.
>>>> They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps
>>>> increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine, the
>>>> price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," says John
>>>> Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the price of
>>>> Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."
>>>>
>>>> http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/09/more-health-insurance-is-not-t
>>>>
>>>> How do you account for the price falling in a market that is a lot
>>>> freer than over regulated healthcare?
>>>
>>> Apples and oranges.
>>>
>>> First, Lasik is elective. If you can't afford it, you can make do with
>>> a $80 pair of glasses. That's a somewhat different case from someone
>>> badly injured in an accident, or dying of a heart attack, or with a big
>>> bloody tumor growing in their chest, etc.
>>
>> It is not apples and oranges
>
> Is, too. Lasik is optional. Non-elective care isn't optional and most
> Americans believe that going without health insurance isn't an option,
> either.
Because it (lasik and much plastic surgery) is an option usually insurance
companies the govts plans do no cover it ... its at the whim of the free
market ... costs have declined.
>
>> ... its health care that is consumer driven rather than govt and
>> insurance driven. Where the consumer deals directly with the doctor
>> like in lasik and plastic surgery the costs have gone down because the
>> doctors have to compete. The consumer is paying for only what he gets
>> nothing more.
>
> You must have missed the furore over those paying their own bills being
> charged significantly more than Medicare and insurance patients.
Medicare/Medicaid do not as a rule pay for Lasik or many plastic surgeries.
>>> Second, the procedure is comparatively straightforward so that Lasik
>>> providers can tell the consumer in advance, right down to the dollar,
>>> exactly what it will cost. This allows consumers to shop around, thus
>>> exerting a downward pressure on prices. A procedure such as a course of
>>> chemotherapy or open-heart surgery can entail many unexpected
>>> complications and expenses, so that even well-meaning providers can't
>>> provide prices in advance. A nasty side-effect of this is that
>>> consumers can no longer compare prices between providers.
>>
>> You are talking about things that insurance should cover, an unforseen
>> major illnes/accident etc.
>
> What I replied to:
Yes, if health insurance only had to cover unforseen major illness/accidents
the cost would be less. You for get govt mandates are also included in
healthcare insurance. These mandates help increase the cost of health
insurance ... like fertility treatment, drug abuse etc. These cost money.
Maternity cost are not unforseen and they have to be covered.
>
> >>> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop
> >>> around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business.
> >>> They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps
> >>> increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine,
> >>> the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," says
> >>> John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the
> >>> Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."
>
> The comparison here is Lasik to "every other field of medicine", not Lasik
> to insurance.
The point was because Lasik surgery is not covered by most insurance/govt
and private and the market is freer. Doctors have to compete which has led
to a decline in the cost of Lasik surgery.
>> Everyday healthcare like common colds/sore throat/physicals etc should
>> be the responsibility of the individual, just like the everyday
>> maintance of ones car is handled by the owner.
>
> I have no problem with that. My own preferred solution to the health
> care problem would be a single-payer system providing only catastrophic
> and some preventative coverage, and the poor would also be covered for
> minor medical care.
Anything that is perceived as free is over used and there become shortages.
Basically everything is rationed .. its rationed by $'s. If I had my way I
would eat stake and lobster, and drive a Hummer. I don't have the $'s to do
that so I have to make do with less.
>> One doesn't use auto insurance for a lube and oil change. Of course if
>> the purchaser of a healthcare insurance policy were free to pick from a
>> menu of items covered he could opt for having colds/sore
>> throat/physicals covered ... this policy would be more expensive then a
>> healthcare policy that covered only the unexpected illnesses and
>> accidents. Even today some CVS's stores have healthcare providers that
>> have a menu of the common things they will cover like sore
>> throats/colds/ear ach for a set price. These are usually cheaper than a
>> doctors visit. Fed and State govt mandate things that must be covered
>> whether and individual needs them or not
>
> A whole lot of complaints might have something to do with that...
>
>> ... these have to ge paid for. If an individual were free to shop for
>> healthcare insurance and buy only what he/she needed the price would
>> probably fall,
>
> I wouldn't pin too much hope on that unless insurance plans also become
> easier for consumers to comprehend and compare.
Consumers comprehend other difficult choices in the market. If there was a
freer market it would be to the benefit of the insurance companies to make
their policies very clear.
>> just like it has when the patient and doctor contract with lasik and
>> plastic surgery.
>
> If prices have fallen for Lasik, it's most likely because of the tight
> economy combined with the fact that Lasik is **OPTIONAL**
See above..
>>>> Society
>>>>> cannot exist for very long with a huge majority of their citizens
>>>>> dying, sick, and abandoned by capitalism.
>>>>
>>>> Its capitalism that has been abandoned in favor of a highly regulated
>>>> healthcare industry where lawyers are free to go for the lotto type
>>>> settlements that causes unneeded tests and procedures for doctors to
>>>> protect themselves.
>>>
>>> The CBO concluded that tort reform would reduce our total bill by only
>>> 2%. I've been comparing notes with my neighbors ever since tort reform
>>> was passed here in Texas and that's just about right - not a single
>>> person I know saw any savings at all in their health insurance or even
>>> a slowing in the rate of increase, let alone the drastic savings that
>>> were so enthusiastically promised in the advertising blitz leading up
>>> to the vote.
>>
>> There was an influx of doctors into Texas when this happened though.
>
> There was also an influx of doctors before tort reform was passed.
The bottom line being that there were/are more doctors. I concede you point
though that doctors had already been moving into Texas.
See above, I conceded you point.
>
>> This isn't the only thing that will help lower costs. mandates by the
>> State and Fed govt raise the cost of insurance ... no letting insurance
>> companies compete among the states. Today we are told that we need a
>> govt option in our healthcare legislation because there is no
>> competition ... its the govt that disallows competiton among the states.
>
> Nevertheless we see the same insurance companies selling policies in
> state after state. IMO the antitrust exemption granted by the
> McCarran-Ferguson Act did far more to reduce competition.
Its more common sense to me ... If one cannot go outside his state to buy
goods/services some things may be more expensive. If I lived in the
Northeastern US and could buy citrus fruit that were only grown in the
Northeastern US, citrus fruit would be very very expensive if I could get it
at all. Why shouldn't one have access to the whole country to buy
insurance?
>> Would it be fair to let the govt which make the rules be a
>> competitor?
>
> Since when does the insurance industry care about playing "fair"?
Again, Would it be fair to let the govt which makes the rules be a cometitor
... what other industry/service has that power. Anyone/company/corp that is
selling a product or service has to compete in a free market ... bad service
or product usually means a company goes out of business. Its to the
insurance company's to 'play fair.'
>
>> This is insane.
>
> Not as insane as continuing to tolerate a 37th-rate health care system
> that allows 45,000 Americans to die every year of treatable causes and
> leaves the rest of us unsure if the insurance we've paid for will be
> there when our own lives are on the line.
This is a UN ranking which is stacked in the favor of socialized medicine.
John Stossel notes that the US finished behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus
and Costa Rica ... do you believe they have better healthcare than the US?
"The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on
how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here
is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but
"unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care
but equal distribution.
It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is
factored in that the U.S. scores go south."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html>>>>>>>>> So, it's to all our benefit--to spread the cost to ALL by reforming>>>>> the system, and that would include regulation, and taxation. THose>>>>> who buy (can afford) insurance wouldn't be shouldering the cost of>>>>> millions who get "free" care in Emergency rooms.>>>>>>>>>> Since even lower incomes do pay state and local taxes (which in part>>>>> fund health care in states)---they are involved in paying>
News Journalism
(socialized healthcare) -
Please consult all of Dr. Capitalism's health alerts -
Dr. Capitalism also prescribes "Healthcare is not a right" at
http://rexcurry.net/doctor2.html
and take as needed "Socialized medicine promotes sickness and death"
at http://rexcurry.net/doctor.html
"Socialized Medicine is explained" at http://rexcurry.net/doctor3.html
Q. What is “National Healthcare”?
A. Its roots go back to a concept pioneered by the Three Stooges of
the Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): ~60 million served
by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; ~50 million served by the
Peoples’ Republic of China; and ~20 million served by the National
Socialist German Workers’ Party. There, it was discovered that a
patient could be made to forget the pain in his foot if he was
starving from lack of food, freezing from lack of clothing, or dying
from lack of heat and electricity in his home, or even if he was
simply poked in the eye. All of the treatment was provided "free."
Sometimes the modern medicine could be provided by transferring the
patient for treatment by specialists in camps at far-away places. The
travel and lodging was all provided “free” by the government. It led
many governments to an astounding medical procedure to end ALL
sickness: kill ALL sick people. http://rexcurry.net/doctor.html
Q. I just love that socialized medicine idea and the price sounds
right! How difficult will it be to choose the doctor I want?
A. Just slightly more difficult than choosing your parents. It will be
comparable to obtaining toilet paper (think of THAT as a "healthcare"
topic too). Your government will tell you where to go and how long to
stay there. The doctors basically fall into two categories – those who
are accepting new patients to add to their waiting lists, and those
who are in the same camp with you. But don't worry, there remains the
possibility of actually paying a doctor for competent prompt care.
After you have been cured you will be convicted for your crimes,
tortured and imprisoned and/or executed but not necessarily in that
order. You can also get on the waiting list for permission to travel
to a barbaric capitalist country that hasn’t progressed to socialized
medicine, but why would you? Even so, many barbaric countries are
progressing as their governments legislate wonderful HMO schemes and
other laws in the constant moves toward socialism.
Q. Do all diagnostic procedures require pre-certification?
A. No. No procedure requires anything and its all free as your right
under the law. If you ever have any problem with any doctor or
facility, just remind them that healthcare is your right under the
law, and that you are entitled to it for free. Any further problems
should be addressed in a letter to the regulatory office (a great
replacement for the lawsuits of old). You have the right to write your
name on the list as many times as you care to stand in line, even
hourly, daily, monthly or yearly. Once your turn for care arrives,
and assuming you still need care, it will be “free.” And remember,
funerals are also “free” and are even considered part of the
comprehensive healthcare quality-control system. If you die, please
let us know so that your name can be removed from the waiting list and
other names can move up.
Q. Can I get coverage for my preexisting conditions?
A. Certainly, as long as they don't require any treatment. And also
see the previous answer.
Q. What happens if I want to try alternative forms of medicine?
A. You'll need to find alternative forms of payment. Afterward, you
will be convicted for your crimes, tortured and executed but not
necessarily in that order. You can also get on the waiting list for
permission to travel to a barbaric capitalist country that hasn’t
fully progressed to socialized medicine, but why would you? Even so,
many barbaric countries are progressing as their governments legislate
wonderful HMO schemes and other laws in the constant moves toward
socialism. So you better hurry!
Q. My pharmacy plan only covers generic drugs, but I need the name
brand. I tried the generic medication, but it gave me a stomach ache.
What should I do?
A. Poke yourself in the eye. Remember, with socialized medicine you
will not be confused and ripped off with “name brands” and dizzying
choices. Also, the best treatment for stomach ache is vodka. In fact
its medicinal qualities work well for everything. The proper dosage
varies and depends on how much is administered orally until the pain
is no longer felt. And you will not be ripped off with “name brands”
and dizzying choices for vodka either. You’re welcome.
Q. What if I'm away from home and I get sick?
A. You really shouldn't do that. How did you do that? Please fill us
in when you return.
Q. I think I need to see a specialist, but my doctor insists he can
handle my problem. Can a general practitioner really perform a heart
transplant right in his/her office?
A. That sounds odd. Are you the donor or recipient? Back when heart
transplants were actually being performed, they were done in
hospitals. Check to see if your name is still on the list in case
heart transplants have been re-authorized. If your doctor really is
“part of the program” then there is no need to question the doctor as
they all receive the same top-notch training. Considering that you
are risking nothing, and it is all “free,” there's no harm in giving
it a shot. What year are you scheduled?
Q. Last week, I heard my neighbor Tom Brodsky talking about the
government’s healthcare system and he said “You never know how
expensive something can be until you get it for ‘free.’” What does
that mean?
A. He was probably delirious from vodka that he was taking for his
stomach ache from cancer. The vodka had confused him the first time
we saw him one wintery day years ago when he complained about waiting
a mere 3 hours in line to write his name on the list. He collapsed
then just from standing in line and we rushed to care for him
(providing crutches - for “free” of course). The next day he was
back again signing up for treatment of pneumonia. We will never know
what his latest riddle meant because records indicate that he has
since succumbed to the horrid stomach disease. His name will be
removed from the waiting list. Thanks. It serves as proof of
inadequate funding for socialized medicine. Please contact your
public officials and tell them to support increased funding for
socialized medicine in order to avoid further tragedies like that.
Q. How can socialism or government provide healthcare or anything for
“free” ?
A. The wonder of socialism is very complex and difficult to explain
and you should not try to think about it too much, nor ask a lot of
questions. Just remember the one word that sums up socialism best:
“Magic!”
Q. Will health care be different in the next century?
A. Yes, one big planned improvement is that your grandchildren will
have a device that is known as a “telephone” and this futuristic
wonder (during times when it is available and operating) will expedite
socialized medicine by enabling people to get on the lists without
spending hours waiting in line to write their names. Socialized
medicine is always improving and in the next century your name can be
removed from our list as another one of our “success” stories.
****************************
the original that was parodied
HMO's Explained
Q. What does HMO stand for?
A. This is actually a variation of the phrase, "HEY MOE." Its roots go
back to a concept pioneered by Moe of the Three Stooges, who
discovered that a patient could be made to forget the pain in his foot
if he was poked hard enough in the eye.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Q. I just joined an HMO. How difficult will it be to choose the doctor
I want?
A. Just slightly more difficult than choosing your parents. Your
insurer will provide you with a book listing all the doctors in the
plan. The
doctors basically fall into two categories--those who are no longer
accepting new patients, and those who will see you but are no longer
participating
in the plan. But don't worry, the remaining doctor who is still in the
plan and accepting new patients has an office just a half-day's drive
away and
a diploma from a third world country.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Do all diagnostic procedures require pre-certification?
A. No. Only those you need.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Can I get coverage for my preexisting conditions?
A. Certainly, as long as they don't require any treatment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What happens if I want to try alternative forms of medicine?
A. You'll need to find alternative forms of payment.
-------------------------------------------------------
Q. My pharmacy plan only covers generic drugs, but I need the name
brand. I tried the generic medication, but it gave me a stomach ache.
What should I do?
A. Poke yourself in the eye.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What if I'm away from home and I get sick?
A. You really shouldn't do that.
-------------------------------------------------------
Q. I think I need to see a specialist, but my doctor insists he can
handle my problem. Can a general practitioner really perform a heart
transplant right in his/her office?
A. Hard to say, but considering that all your risking is the $20 co-
payment, there's no harm in giving it a shot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Will health care be different in the next century?
A. No, but if you call right now, you might get an appointment by then.
pbj
Some countries are ahead in some areas, other countries in others. At
best, this is just cherry-picking the cases where the numbers happen to
favor the US. At worst, I've seen complaints that the whole methodology
is flawed because it doesn't take into account the clinical stage of
cancers. That is, it may be comparing early-stage cancers under one
system to late-state cancers in another.
> Fact 3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases
> than patients in other deeloped countries.
That conclusion is based on a single measure - access to statins for
cholesterol reduction. American and European doctors have a
philosophical disagreement on the appropriateness of statins over other
options. To choose this one particular measure and no other is about as
dishonest as it gets.
> Fact 4 Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening
> than Canadians.
Cherry-picking again.
> Fact 5. Lower Income Americans ae in better health than comparable
> Canadians.
And the rest of it:
Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report
"excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus
5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below median
incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to
describe their health as "fair or poor."'
"Self-reporting" is grossly inaccurate, easy to skew by loading the
questions, and the preferred polling method of propagandists everywhere.
That aside, Americans and Canadians may have differing concepts of just
what constitutes a serious health problem.
Also, isn't it odd how the numbers are produced for the old and the
young but not for those in-between?
> Fact 6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than paients in
> Canada and the UK.
And the rest of it:
Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long -- sometimes
more than a year -- to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like
hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told,
827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In
England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital
admission or outpatient treatment.
So we're talking only for elective care, which many US insurance plans
don't cover or only partially cover. Now, how long do the 30% of
Americans without health insurance wait for non-elective care? How long
do the 45,000 Americans who die every year for lack of health insurance
wait for non-elective care? How long do Canadians wait for non-elective
care?
Ever sat in the ER for six hours while the hospital verified your
coverage? Canadians requiring emergency treatment don't have to do that.
> Fact 7 People in countries with more government control of health care
> are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70% of
> German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and Brithish adults sasy
> their helth systesm needs either 'fundamental change' or 'complete
> rebuilding.'
You conveniently forgot to mention that 82% of Americans respond the
same way and that 34% of Americans believe our system needs to be
rebuilt as opposed to 12% and 15% for Canada and the UK.
> Fact 8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they redceie than
> Canadians.
Just to make sure it's clear, this question was about actual medical
care, not the insurance system. It's our insurance system we're trying
to reform.
> Fact 9. Americans haave much better access to important new
> technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the UK.
A city only needs so many MRI machines but every hospital in town
insists on having one. So, we have more MRI machines than we really
need, yet they're all kept busy. That means we're paying for a whole lot
of unnecessary MRI's.
Also a higher percentage of Canada's population is far from a big city.
It's hard to justify an MRI in such sparsely populated areas.
> Fact 10 Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health
> care innovations."
Half the pharmaceutical research in the US is paid for by the US
government and done in government-run universities. That's the most
critical half - basic research. The pharmaceutical companies mostly just
do the research necessary to gain FDA approval so they can sell the
product and rake in the money.
By the way, from today's news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8390262.stm
Children suffering from a rare condition which can kill
babies within days are being saved - with glue.
The adhesive is being given injections to combat Vein of
Galen malformation, which affects communication between the
arteries and veins in their brain.
The glue technique was pioneered by Dr Pierre Lasjaunias in
France in the 1980s.
ALso:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5B01MV20091201
PARIS (Reuters) - French scientists have found a way to
create human skin rapidly from stem cells, a discovery that
could save the lives of many burns victims who are
vulnerable to infection and now wait weeks for a skin
graft....Skin grafts have traditionally been created from
cell cultures taken from the patient -- a process that takes
three weeks, too long for some patients suffering extensive
burns....The new method using stem cells allows hospitals to
order human skin as soon as they take in a burns victim.
> http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649
The only thing you accomplish by quoting lies and propaganda is to destroy
your own credibility.
>>
>>> As far as being able to evaluate his options a consumer is smart
>>> enough to do this. I have no expertise in how my car's engine works,
>>> but I'm smart enough to take it to a mechanic that does.
>>
>> There's a reason an honest mechanic is worth his weight in gold...
>
> True and Americans can figure out and be responsible for their own
> health care.
And because they lack medical expertise, they can get ripped off just
like they are by mechanics - only for a whole lot more money.
>>
>>> You don't seem to give much credit to consumers of services.
>>
>> If an insurance company needs a team of lawyers to write a contract,
>> then it's not unreasonable to expect a consumer to need a lawyer to
>> interpret the legalese and to spot all the traps and pitfalls.
>
> Who do you think writes the govt health care legislation?
Our elected representatives. Yeah, it's a messy imperfect system and
some of our legislators are owned by corporations so it don't always
work in our favor, but the alternative is to just sit back and let the
corporations make *all* the rules with only their own immediate bottom
line in mind. No, thanks.
> If you been watching, a lot of the 'traps and pitfalls' are being
> pointed out, not to mention the bureaucracy a govt run health care
> sets up.
All I see from the right is a lot of lies, obstructionism and
fear-mongering. Realistic debate on problems and solutions is mostly
being left up to the Democrats.
>>
>>>>> "By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own
>>>>> way, service gets better, while prices fall.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop
>>>>> around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business.
>>>>> They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps
>>>>> increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine, the
>>>>> price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," says John
>>>>> Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the price
>>>>> of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/09/more-health-insurance-is-not-t
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you account for the price falling in a market that is a lot
>>>>> freer than over regulated healthcare?
>>>>
>>>> Apples and oranges.
>>>>
>>>> First, Lasik is elective. If you can't afford it, you can make do
>>>> with a $80 pair of glasses. That's a somewhat different case from
>>>> someone badly injured in an accident, or dying of a heart attack, or
>>>> with a big bloody tumor growing in their chest, etc.
>>>
>>> It is not apples and oranges
>>
>> Is, too. Lasik is optional. Non-elective care isn't optional and most
>> Americans believe that going without health insurance isn't an option,
>> either.
>
> Because it (lasik and much plastic surgery) is an option usually
> insurance companies the govts plans do no cover it ... its at the whim
> of the free market ... costs have declined.
... and Lasik is optional in a tightening economy, while non-elective
medical care isn't.
>>
>>> ... its health care that is consumer driven rather than govt and
>>> insurance driven. Where the consumer deals directly with the doctor
>>> like in lasik and plastic surgery the costs have gone down because the
>>> doctors have to compete. The consumer is paying for only what he gets
>>> nothing more.
>>
>> You must have missed the furore over those paying their own bills being
>> charged significantly more than Medicare and insurance patients.
>
> Medicare/Medicaid do not as a rule pay for Lasik or many plastic
> surgeries.
They do however pay for elective care, which was also being discussed. I
chose that because it puts the price comparison on an equal footing with
respect to the necessity of care. You keep trying to take an optional
procedure that people pay cash for, and essential care that insurance
covers, and claim the difference in price behavior is due to one being
cash and the other being insurance, rather than one being optional and
the other being essential. With non-elective care we can look at the
very same procedures with and without insurance or medical care. We see
then that when the procedure is exactly the same, insurance companies
are paying less than individuals - exactly the opposite of what you
claim. I would guess that that's because insurance companies, since they
represent a large block of business, have way more bargaining clout than
lone individuals. To counteract your worry about people abusing free
services, insurance companies also have final say over whether they'll
provide coverage.
Also, I don't know of too many people who would go for an unneeded
surgery just because someone else is paying for it.
>>>> Second, the procedure is comparatively straightforward so that Lasik
>>>> providers can tell the consumer in advance, right down to the dollar,
>>>> exactly what it will cost. This allows consumers to shop around, thus
>>>> exerting a downward pressure on prices. A procedure such as a course
>>>> of chemotherapy or open-heart surgery can entail many unexpected
>>>> complications and expenses, so that even well-meaning providers can't
>>>> provide prices in advance. A nasty side-effect of this is that
>>>> consumers can no longer compare prices between providers.
>>>
>>> You are talking about things that insurance should cover, an unforseen
>>> major illnes/accident etc.
>>
>> What I replied to:
>
> Yes, if health insurance only had to cover unforseen major
> illness/accidents the cost would be less. You for get govt mandates are
> also included in healthcare insurance. These mandates help increase the
> cost of health insurance ... like fertility treatment, drug abuse etc.
> These cost money. Maternity cost are not unforseen and they have to be
> covered.
All of those examples are health-related. I see no reason that
regular insurance policies should be able to exclude them. I question
whether catastrophic policies should cover fertility treatment but I
would regard maternity care and drug abuse as major medical.
>>
>> >>> "Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients
>> >>> shop around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their
>> >>> business. They often give customers their cell-phone numbers.
>> >>> Service keeps increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field
>> >>> of medicine, the price is going up faster than consumer prices in
>> >>> general," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy
>> >>> Analysis. "But the Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30
>> >>> percent."
>>
>> The comparison here is Lasik to "every other field of medicine", not
>> Lasik to insurance.
>
> The point was because Lasik surgery is not covered by most
> insurance/govt and private and the market is freer. Doctors have to
> compete which has led to a decline in the cost of Lasik surgery.
Your continued insistence on this apples and oranges comparison hasn't
proven anything except that you don't know the difference between apples
and oranges.
>>> Everyday healthcare like common colds/sore throat/physicals etc should
>>> be the responsibility of the individual, just like the everyday
>>> maintance of ones car is handled by the owner.
>>
>> I have no problem with that. My own preferred solution to the health
>> care problem would be a single-payer system providing only catastrophic
>> and some preventative coverage, and the poor would also be covered for
>> minor medical care.
>
> Anything that is perceived as free is over used and there become
> shortages. Basically everything is rationed .. its rationed by $'s.
Health care here is already rationed by dollars. The question is whether
we'd rather have it rationed by insurance companies who care only for
their own bottom line, or by our elected representatives.
> If I had my way I would eat stake and lobster, and drive a Hummer. I
> don't have the $'s to do that so I have to make do with less.
People don't go down and get an MRI and open-heart surgery just because
it's free. To deal with the few crazies who would, put doctors on a
salary so they've no incentive either to push or to disallow care and then
let them decide what's necessary. Problem solved.
>
>>> One doesn't use auto insurance for a lube and oil change. Of course if
>>> the purchaser of a healthcare insurance policy were free to pick from
>>> a menu of items covered he could opt for having colds/sore
>>> throat/physicals covered ... this policy would be more expensive then
>>> a healthcare policy that covered only the unexpected illnesses and
>>> accidents. Even today some CVS's stores have healthcare providers that
>>> have a menu of the common things they will cover like sore
>>> throats/colds/ear ach for a set price. These are usually cheaper than
>>> a doctors visit. Fed and State govt mandate things that must be
>>> covered whether and individual needs them or not
>>
>> A whole lot of complaints might have something to do with that...
>>
>>> ... these have to ge paid for. If an individual were free to shop for
>>> healthcare insurance and buy only what he/she needed the price would
>>> probably fall,
>>
>> I wouldn't pin too much hope on that unless insurance plans also become
>> easier for consumers to comprehend and compare.
>
> Consumers comprehend other difficult choices in the market. If there
> was a freer market it would be to the benefit of the insurance
> companies to make their policies very clear.
Unless they can all make more money by keeping their contracts and plans
confusing so as to defeat the competitive forces that would otherwise
drive prices and profits down across the board.
>
>>> just like it has when the patient and doctor contract with lasik and
>>> plastic surgery.
>>
>> If prices have fallen for Lasik, it's most likely because of the tight
>> economy combined with the fact that Lasik is **OPTIONAL**
>
> See above..
>
>>>>> Society
>>>>>> cannot exist for very long with a huge majority of their citizens
>>>>>> dying, sick, and abandoned by capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its capitalism that has been abandoned in favor of a highly
>>>>> regulated healthcare industry where lawyers are free to go for the
>>>>> lotto type settlements that causes unneeded tests and procedures for
>>>>> doctors to protect themselves.
>>>>
>>>> The CBO concluded that tort reform would reduce our total bill by
>>>> only 2%. I've been comparing notes with my neighbors ever since tort
>>>> reform was passed here in Texas and that's just about right - not a
>>>> single person I know saw any savings at all in their health insurance
>>>> or even a slowing in the rate of increase, let alone the drastic
>>>> savings that were so enthusiastically promised in the advertising
>>>> blitz leading up to the vote.
>>>
>>> There was an influx of doctors into Texas when this happened though.
>>
>> There was also an influx of doctors before tort reform was passed.
>
> The bottom line being that there were/are more doctors.
But not any big influx due to tort reform, unless you can explain to my
satisfaction how years of steady upward growth magically went away the
very year tort reform was passed.
> I concede you point though that doctors had already been moving into
> Texas.
>
>> Compiled from statistics at the Texas Department of State Health
>> Services (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/hprc/health.shtm and click on
>> "physicians"):
>>
>>
>> Year Physicians Growth
>>
The Democrats are working on that very thing as part of health care
reform. However, it's closely tied to the antitrust exemption. One
purpose of McCarran-Ferguson was to give the states local regulatory
control over the insurance companies. To allow the insurance companies
to do business across state lines requires moving them into the category
of interstate commerce. That means the states have to give up a lot of
local control to the federal government. They aren't willing to even
talk about that until the antitrust exemption is revoked. The insurance
companies *love* their antitrust exemption so their Republican pals are
fighting attempts to revoke it.
>
>>> Would it be fair to let the govt which make the rules be a
>>> competitor?
>>
>> Since when does the insurance industry care about playing "fair"?
>
> Again, Would it be fair to let the govt which makes the rules be a
> cometitor ...
The government is being damn nice just letting them play at all. If it
were up to me, we'd bomb the insurance industry to rubble, hang their
sleazy bastard CEO's, and go straight to a single-payer system.
> what other industry/service has that power.
What consumer has the political or economic power of an insurance
company? Why is it "fair" to pit lone individuals against big powerful
megacorporations but not "fair" to pit our elected government against
big powerful megacorporations?
> Anyone/company/corp that is selling a product or service has to compete
> in a free market ... bad service or product usually means a company
> goes out of business. Its to the insurance company's to 'play fair.'
We're surrounded by whole industries that make their money by not
playing "fair" with consumers. The software industry, for example,
that's taken away fair use through EULA's and DRM and license servers,
or the cable TV and cellphone industries with their use of high ETF's to
lock consumers in.
The idea of a free market as a place where companies compete purely on
price, quality, and innovation is primitive and naive in today's world.
Modern business strategy is all about defeating or bypassing competitive
forces, locking consumers in, and then milking them dry while continuing
to work outside of the marketplace to ruthlessly destroy any budding
competition before it can become a threat. If you don't think it works,
read up on Microsoft.
>>
>>> This is insane.
>>
>> Not as insane as continuing to tolerate a 37th-rate health care system
>> that allows 45,000 Americans to die every year of treatable causes and
>> leaves the rest of us unsure if the insurance we've paid for will be
>> there when our own lives are on the line.
>
> This is a UN ranking which is stacked in the favor of socialized
> medicine. John Stossel notes that the US finished behind nations like
> Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica ... do you believe they have better
> healthcare than the US? "The WHO judged countries not on the absolute
> quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality
> is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a
> country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution"
> would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal
> distribution. It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective
> standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south."
But... but... I thought "fairness" MATTERED to you... or is that only
when it works to the favor of big uncaring corporations?