Health care horseshit
Michael Coburn
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_HEALTH_FORUM?
SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT -------------------
"Obama said a government-run "single-payer" health care system works well
in some countries. But it is not appropriate in the United States, he
said, because so many people get insurance through their employers
working with private companies."
----------------------------------------------------------
So screw getting insurance through employers. They clog up the system
almost as bad as the @#^$*#@&*& insurance companies.
Both of these entities actually _GAIN_ from increased cost of health
care. Insurance companies run a protection racket and want the cost of
care to be so high that no rational being trying to gain assets for
retirement can afford to be without insurance. The Employers want very
much to keep employees from becoming entrepreneurial and going out on
their own or from forming cooperatives or small businesses that would
compete with current employers. Using large groups of younger people and
tax advantages the large corporations have a real hook in the ass of
talented and energetic people. Entrepreneurs and Small businesses are at
a HUGE disadvantage in the current system. This flies in the face of
anything remotely resembling a "fair market".
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Michael Coburn
Added alt.politics.economics
Fish
the current health care cost is about 16% of GDP , projected to be 32%
in the next 15 - 20 yrs unless there is a new direction - this country
is heading toward bankruptcy just like CA at this time where health
care industry enslaves American just like plantation owners enslaved
African American. Eat as much as they can and leave behind garbages.
Defense Industry aka Pentagon
Health Care
Wall Street
in random order, false promise, never meant to be true
Michael Coburn
I wonder if what you have said actually makes any sense to you?
Let's see if you can pass a simple test:
Tell us how this problem of projected health care costs caused by
demographics and the improvement in all other areas (the natural outcome
of progress), can be addressed.
J.H.Boersema
>http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_HEALTH_FORUM?
>SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT -------------------
>
>"Obama said a government-run "single-payer" health care system works well
>in some countries. But it is not appropriate in the United States, he
>said, because so many people get insurance through their employers
>working with private companies."
IOW: "I don't know what to do." ? Isn't the Government there to make
things change that are going wrong ?
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>So screw getting insurance through employers. They clog up the system
>almost as bad as the @#^$*#@&*& insurance companies.
>
>Both of these entities actually _GAIN_ from increased cost of health
>care. Insurance companies run a protection racket and want the cost of
>care to be so high that no rational being trying to gain assets for
>retirement can afford to be without insurance. The Employers want very
>much to keep employees from becoming entrepreneurial and going out on
>their own or from forming cooperatives or small businesses that would
>compete with current employers. Using large groups of younger people and
>tax advantages the large corporations have a real hook in the ass of
>talented and energetic people. Entrepreneurs and Small businesses are at
>a HUGE disadvantage in the current system. This flies in the face of
>anything remotely resembling a "fair market".
I've thought some time about the health-care system from a fundamental
economic perspective, because it is the most difficult subsystem.
Infrastructure, Police, Justice, Government are easy: nationalize it.
Simple productivity like backeries and farming: free market.
Health care has fundamental economic problems:
- Buyers don't wish to buy, they are forced to buy because of an
emergency (illness).
- Buyers don't know beforehand they will get sick.
- Cost of treatment beforehand is often unknown.
- Serious hospitals contain so much equipment and skills that if they
go bankrupt, it could disrupt society seriously.
- Small hospital like services can go bankrupt.
- Patients often visit only a few or even one hospital in their entire
life, and therefore are not in a position to judge services from
direct experience. They have to find the best one based on hear say.
- Hospitals are such complicated operations that while one department
may be of world class perfection, another might be substandard in
the region.
- Hospital visits will often be decades apart, in which time a hospital
could change its competence drastically up or down wards.
- When patients can choose their hospital, the hospital has a reason to
do well in case the payment structure is such that healing is rewarded
and incompetence punished. Because of the insurance situation this
link is not a given like it is in any other market: an insurer has
for example a financial interest in terminating an expensive patient,
and has a financial interest in rewarding hospitals who terminate
expensive patients on its behalf.
- Hospitals can be places where many volunteers work, which is also
technically not the logic of the free market (which doesn't mean I'm
against volunteer labor!).
- The technicalities of the treatment are so difficult that only the
professionals themselves understand it; and even they often don't.
In other words: I don't see a bigger economic challange then health
care. Finance ? Finance is not difficult at all: it must be
democratized, socialized, and nationalized. Finance is a piece of
cake compared to health care.
So I thought this scheme might work, comments appreciated.
These ideas are to work in a DAVID economy, which is an economy
where business finance is socialized, land is distributed, companies
become democracies after starter leaves, and the government is a true
democracy.
- Small hospital/clinic operations can be free market, like backeries
and shops. But, of course, they need to comply with quality standards
because the public is in no position to judge quality. The public
must be protected from malpractices, and so does the honorable
competition who do make all the necessary costs. Health care is to
final and definite to a person its life, it is a lot worse then
having a bad cup of coffee for once when it goes wrong.
I'm not going to argue each point, takes too long, it shouldn't be hard
to see why:
- Big hospitals could *rent* all the equipment from the Government.
- Big hospitals could be divided into smaller money flow independent
management units (idea already done somewhere in Holland, said to work).
- Big hospitals are run by internal and/or state democracy.
Insurance:
- Nationalized, minimum services mandatory to be insured. Hospital does
not look at who is insured but treats all patients regardless.
Technically a non-insured person is someone who hasn't payed its state
taxes ("state" mean country/nation, not `province' as it does in the US).
- Insurance (state) pays hospitals for treatments.
- Patients can choose freely to whatever hospital they want to go within
the nation. It may be necessary to avoid insurance fraud to have a
case by case examination by a state agency. For example: a fraudster
and a private doctor and surgeon pretend a heart problem, pretend an
operation for 80.000,-, then split the insurence money. It might also
work that the examination is made afterwards, if possible (for example
in case of a heart-transplant it could probably be detected that it
took place ?). As things are with law enforcement: you only have to
investigate a certain percentage, and punish hard. If you only test
20% of all cases, and close hospitals and throw the guilty in jail
in case of frauds, then the other 80% are probably going to be ok
because of fear.
Yep, in a society that does too much crime, you have to rule by fear.
Can't deal with that ? Commit suicide, because it is reality.
Then I thought this might work, because you run the risk that hospitals
that are most expensive will attract most patients, so that can spiral
out of control. Although you could limit that problem by direct
management. Maybe that is sufficient already, probably is.
- Insurance pays, say, 99% of all medical bills, and 100% of all bills
above a sum that all people should be able to afford easily (or pay
back easily), say 1 month of average wages (or 2 weeks).
That way the public will also weigh in the cost of treatments, and
choose a hospital that has a better cost/quality balance. They won't
always want to go to the most expensive for the insurence because
they don't pay the direct bills anyway. They'd be paying a small
amount, if done right just enough to make the people choose cheaper
if the price difference doesn't buy anything worthwhile for them.
A bit of payment for hospital visits also keep the number of visits
down, although some specialists say that is something that should
*not* be done because people stay home with serious illnesses too
long. In that case examinations should be made 100% insured.
I don't guarantee that this is the best way, but it seems to me it
is a reasonable attempt given the complexity the field. We should
listen closely to what the medical specialists say and how they want
things to improve quality. People in the field tend to have the best
ideas.
I think that very simple nationalized health-care tends to work
historically, and that privatized health care (big hospitals, big
insurence) tends not to work. That said, small time private dentists
and other specialist practices also clearly work very well.
So the answer is probably at least the nationalization of insurence
and big hospitals, and free market for small operations, and good
quality control. There can then still be a market for luxury health
care insurence.
One important point is, I think: internal hospital democracy. The
nurses and support staff also know what they are doing, and should
have more of a say in how they do things. As long as there is adequate
quality research/control, it should be OK. Hospitals can be steered
both by state quality control demands (revoking license), and the
amount of money they get from state insurence (finance), and the
willingness of the state to purchase/hire to that hospital group
equipment, and the preference of partially money motivated patients.
Reasonable ? Too complicated ? Wrong ? Let's see how it works ?
Doing = knowing. It won't be perfect in every instance, but I think it
could more or less be a stable system. Then finally politics can get
out of health care and quit their eternal re-organizations. Hospitals
and medical people can then concentrate finally on their work (provided
it is a functioning system). If it works in one nation it can be
replicated to the others.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
fruitella
>
> - Show quoted text -
The reason health care costs have risen through the roof is due to the
medical industry getting govt to finance health care via subsidies,
handouts, taxation..etc.
The simple way to reduce health care costs is to allow foreign
competition to enter the US. Let a couple hundred foreign hospitals
staffed with foreign doctors & surgeon setup in the US. Impose
regulations on them to keep them compliant but let them compete
against the local over-priced health care. Overnight, the cost will
drop 60%.
Have these foreign companies listed on the stock exchange so the
market can reward or punish them for their competence/infompetence.
The above is contingent on the local medical industry mafia not
putting all kinds of roadblocks in the way of foreign hospitals
setting up shop.
Your idea of trying to offload the bill onto some poor sucker who's
already cash strapped just won't work. Insurance increases not
decreases the cost of medical care. The frist thing a dentists wants
to know when you walk into his clinic is what kind of job you have and
therefore how much he can get from your insurance.
Rod Speed
> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_HEALTH_FORUM?
>> SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT -------------------
>> "Obama said a government-run "single-payer" health care system
>> works well in some countries. But it is not appropriate in the United
>> States, he said, because so many people get insurance through
>> their employers working with private companies."
> IOW: "I don't know what to do." ?
Nope, "I cant see me getting single payer voted for by Congress"
> Isn't the Government there to make things change that are going wrong ?
Yes, but there is more than one way to change.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> So screw getting insurance through employers. They clog up the
>> system almost as bad as the @#^$*#@&*& insurance companies.
>> Both of these entities actually _GAIN_ from increased cost of health
>> care. Insurance companies run a protection racket and want the cost
>> of care to be so high that no rational being trying to gain assets
>> for retirement can afford to be without insurance. The Employers
>> want very much to keep employees from becoming entrepreneurial and
>> going out on their own or from forming cooperatives or small
>> businesses that would compete with current employers. Using large
>> groups of younger people and tax advantages the large corporations
>> have a real hook in the ass of talented and energetic people.
>> Entrepreneurs and Small businesses are at a HUGE disadvantage in the
>> current system. This flies in the face of anything remotely
>> resembling a "fair market".
> I've thought some time about the health-care system from a fundamental
> economic perspective, because it is the most difficult subsystem.
Thats arguable. The economy is much more difficult.
> Infrastructure, Police, Justice, Government are easy: nationalize it.
> Simple productivity like backeries and farming: free market.
> Health care has fundamental economic problems:
> - Buyers don't wish to buy,
Plenty are happy to buy but cant afford to pay for serious medical problems.
> they are forced to buy because of an emergency (illness).
They arent forced to buy medical services for simple stuff like the common cold.
> - Buyers don't know beforehand they will get sick.
They can be quite confident that most of them will get sick sometime.
> - Cost of treatment beforehand is often unknown.
Just as true of repairs to your house or car. Doesnt stop if being viably done by the free market.
> - Serious hospitals contain so much equipment and skills
> that if they go bankrupt, it could disrupt society seriously.
And the other much more common problem is funding
the expensive equipment they need in the first place.
> - Small hospital like services can go bankrupt.
Anything can go bankrupt.
> - Patients often visit only a few or even one hospital in their entire
> life, and therefore are not in a position to judge services from direct
> experience. They have to find the best one based on hear say.
> - Hospitals are such complicated operations that while
> one department may be of world class perfection,
> another might be substandard in the region.
Just as true with many large operations in any free market.
> - Hospital visits will often be decades apart, in which time a
> hospital could change its competence drastically up or down wards.
Just as true of building houses.
> - When patients can choose their hospital, the hospital has
> a reason to do well in case the payment structure is such
> that healing is rewarded and incompetence punished.
Very difficult to do that in practice. It isnt that easy to change hospitals
when you discover that they arent doing your heart attack well etc.
> Because of the insurance situation this link is not a given like it is
> in any other market: an insurer has for example a financial interest
> in terminating an expensive patient, and has a financial interest in
> rewarding hospitals who terminate expensive patients on its behalf.
> - Hospitals can be places where many volunteers work,
> which is also technically not the logic of the free market
Just as true with the provision of non perishable food and clothes etc.
> (which doesn't mean I'm against volunteer labor!).
Just as well, they'd beat you to a pulp if you were !!
> - The technicalities of the treatment are so difficult that only the
> professionals themselves understand it; and even they often don't.
It isnt that hard to get decent documentation of the current best treatment protocols.
> In other words: I don't see a bigger economic challange then health care.
Then you need to get out more and consider the country's economy.
> Finance ? Finance is not difficult at all: it must
> be democratized, socialized, and nationalized.
Thats just one way. Japan does it by controlling the prices that can be charged instead.
> Finance is a piece of cake compared to health care.
Paying for it isnt.
> So I thought this scheme might work, comments appreciated.
We'll see...
> These ideas are to work in a DAVID economy, which is an economy where
> business finance is socialized, land is distributed, companies become
> democracies after starter leaves, and the government is a true democracy.
So its complete cloud cuckooland and not worth even considering.
Michael Coburn
> On Jul 2, 5:51 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:31:44 -0700, Fish wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 6:18 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:25:12 +0000, Michael Coburn wrote:
> > >> >http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_HEALTH_FORUM?
> > >> > SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT -------------------
>
> > >> > well in some countries. But it is not appropriate in the United
> > >> > States, he said, because so many people get insurance through
their
> > >> > employers working with private companies."
>
> > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > >> > So screw getting insurance through employers. They clog up the
> > >> > system almost as bad as the @#^$*#@&*& insurance companies.
>
> > >> > Both of these entities actually _GAIN_ from increased cost
ofhealth
> > >> >care. Insurance companies run a protection racket and want the
cost
> > >> > for retirement can afford to be without insurance. The Employers
> > >> > want very much to keep employees from becoming entrepreneurial
and
> > >> > going out on their own or from forming cooperatives or small
> > >> > businesses that would compete with current employers. Using
large
> > >> > groups of younger people and tax advantages the large
corporations
> > >> > have a real hook in the ass of talented and energetic people.
> > >> > Entrepreneurs and Small businesses are at a HUGE disadvantage in
the
> > >> > current system. This flies in the face of anything remotely
> > >> > resembling a "fair market".
>
> > >> Added alt.politics.economics
>
> > >> --
> > >> "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
>
> > > in the next 15 - 20 yrs unless there is a new direction - this
country
> > > is heading toward bankruptcy just like CA at this time
wherehealthcare
> > > industry enslaves American just like plantation owners enslaved
African
> > > American. Eat as much as they can and leave behind garbages.
>
> > > Defense Industry aka Pentagon
> > >HealthCare
> > > Wall Street
>
> > > in random order, false promise, never meant to be true
>
> > I wonder if what you have said actually makes any sense to you?
>
> > Let's see if you can pass a simple test:
>
> > demographics and the improvement in all other areas (the natural
outcome
> > of progress), can be addressed.
>
> > --
> > "Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson- Hide
quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> medical industry getting govt to financehealthcarevia subsidies,
> handouts, taxation..etc.
The moronic stupidity continues unabated. A hatred for any social
response to the social problems. On a whole life basis we are all
equally at risk for the need of health care. And on that basis it is an
obvious insurance situation. The larger the pool the lower the costs.
Proper administration is required and can be assured through the voting
system. Thanks for playing.
> The simple way to reducehealthcarecosts is to allow foreign
> competition to enter the US. Let a couple hundred foreign hospitals
> staffed with foreign doctors & surgeon setup in the US. Impose
> regulations on them to keep them compliant but let them compete
> against the local over-pricedhealthcare. Overnight, the cost will
> drop 60%.
That may actually be a rational thing to do. But it won't happen
"overnight" and there are a lot of other solutions that can address the
situation immediately. There seems to be an implication that a single
payer system would not be able to do this just as well of better than the
current stupidity system.
Free market fundamentalism is a terrible brain destroying condition that
seems to be endemic in the American population. It is caused by wearing
a coonskin cap and carrying a rifle.
> Have these foreign companies listed on the stock exchange so the
> market can reward or punish them for their competence/infompetence.
>
> The above is contingent on the local medical industry mafia not
> putting all kinds of roadblocks in the way of foreign hospitals
> setting up shop.
>
> Your idea of trying to offload the bill onto some poor sucker who's
> already cash strapped just won't work. Insurance increases not
> decreases the cost of medicalcare. The frist thing a dentists wants
> to know when you walk into his clinic is what kind of job you have and
> therefore how much he can get from your insurance
Good point... The providers should not need to ask. If we all have
single payer insurance than the problem will be solved by triage in a
proper off budget system for health care.
Rod Speed
> fruitella wrote
Yours certainly does.
> A hatred for any social response to the social problems.
> On a whole life basis we are all equally at risk for the need of health care.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie, most obviously with those
who arent obese, dont smoke and have decent genes.
> And on that basis it is an obvious insurance situation.
Pity its a lie.
> The larger the pool the lower the costs.
Another lie if the high risk dregs dont currently insure.
> Proper administration is required and can
> be assured through the voting system.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> Thanks for playing.
No thanks for your mindless wanking.
>> The simple way to reducehealthcarecosts is to allow foreign
>> competition to enter the US. Let a couple hundred foreign hospitals
>> staffed with foreign doctors & surgeon setup in the US. Impose
>> regulations on them to keep them compliant but let them compete
>> against the local over-pricedhealthcare. Overnight, the cost will
>> drop 60%.
> That may actually be a rational thing to do. But it won't happen "overnight"
Wont happen, ever.
He is however free to bugger off to any of those hospitals out of the country he chooses to.
Hopefully he will try that when having a heart attack.
> and there are a lot of other solutions that can address the situation immediately.
Nope, just a couple.
> There seems to be an implication that a single payer system would not
> be able to do this just as well of better than the current stupidity system.
> Free market fundamentalism is a terrible brain destroying
> condition that seems to be endemic in the American population.
> It is caused by wearing a coonskin cap and carrying a rifle.
I doubt too many of them do either.
Michael Coburn
I have shown how these problems can be handled quite fairly. But a virus
has no brains.
>> And on that basis it is an obvious insurance situation.
>
> Pity its a lie.
The virus with no brains is a bot.
>> The larger the pool the lower the costs.
>
> Another lie if the high risk dregs dont currently insure.
Now the bot actually looses the realities. I think the handlers need to
make some major adjustments.
>> Proper administration is required and can be assured through the voting
>> system.
>
> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
This part is actually logical if not true... The current electoral
district sizes do pose a serious problem to our control over government.
More representation for the people is called for.
>> Thanks for playing.
>
> No thanks for your mindless wanking.
>
>>> The simple way to reducehealthcarecosts is to allow foreign
>>> competition to enter the US. Let a couple hundred foreign hospitals
>>> staffed with foreign doctors & surgeon setup in the US. Impose
>>> regulations on them to keep them compliant but let them compete
>>> against the local over-pricedhealthcare. Overnight, the cost will
>>> drop 60%.
>
>> That may actually be a rational thing to do. But it won't happen
>> "overnight"
>
> Wont happen, ever.
>
> He is however free to bugger off to any of those hospitals out of the
> country he chooses to.
>
> Hopefully he will try that when having a heart attack.
>
>> and there are a lot of other solutions that can address the situation
>> immediately.
>
> Nope, just a couple.
>
>> There seems to be an implication that a single payer system would not
>> be able to do this just as well of better than the current stupidity
>> system.
>
>> Free market fundamentalism is a terrible brain destroying condition
>> that seems to be endemic in the American population. It is caused by
>> wearing a coonskin cap and carrying a rifle.
>
> I doubt too many of them do either.
It is a metaphore. We see what would a bot does with it.
>>> Have these foreign companies listed on the stock exchange so the
>>> market can reward or punish them for their competence/infompetence.
>>>
>>> The above is contingent on the local medical industry mafia not
>>> putting all kinds of roadblocks in the way of foreign hospitals
>>> setting up shop.
>>>
>>> Your idea of trying to offload the bill onto some poor sucker who's
>>> already cash strapped just won't work. Insurance increases not
>>> decreases the cost of medicalcare. The frist thing a dentists wants
>>> to know when you walk into his clinic is what kind of job you have and
>>> therefore how much he can get from your insurance
>
>> Good point... The providers should not need to ask. If we all have
>> single payer insurance than the problem will be solved by triage in a
>> proper off budget system for health care.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Coburn wrote
>>> fruitella wrote
>>>> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>>>> Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Michael Coburn wrote
You're lying, as always.
<reams of its puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> And on that basis it is an obvious insurance situation.
>> Pity its a lie.
<reams of its puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> The larger the pool the lower the costs.
>> Another lie if the high risk dregs dont currently insure.
<reams of its puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> Proper administration is required and can be assured through the voting system.
>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
> This part is actually logical if not true... The current electoral
> district sizes do pose a serious problem to our control over
> government. More representation for the people is called for.
How odd that that in Britain makes no difference.
>>> Thanks for playing.
>> No thanks for your mindless wanking.
>>>> The simple way to reducehealthcarecosts is to allow foreign
>>>> competition to enter the US. Let a couple hundred foreign
>>>> hospitals staffed with foreign doctors & surgeon setup in the US.
>>>> Impose regulations on them to keep them compliant but let them
>>>> compete against the local over-pricedhealthcare. Overnight, the
>>>> cost will drop 60%.
>>> That may actually be a rational thing to do. But it won't happen "overnight"
>> Wont happen, ever.
>> He is however free to bugger off to any of those hospitals out of the country he chooses to.
>> Hopefully he will try that when having a heart attack.
>>> and there are a lot of other solutions that can address the situation immediately.
>> Nope, just a couple.
>>> There seems to be an implication that a single payer system would
>>> not be able to do this just as well of better than the current stupidity system.
>>> Free market fundamentalism is a terrible brain destroying condition
>>> that seems to be endemic in the American population. It is caused by
>>> wearing a coonskin cap and carrying a rifle.
>> I doubt too many of them do either.
> It is a metaphore.
Its just more of your mindless wanking.
<reams of its puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>