It seems like a good idea..but anything the government controlls is off-scale inefficient and expensive. Not much choice with military..but there 300 dollar toilet seats comes to mind.
At $5,267 per person, U.S. citizens pay most in world for medical care
- Thread starter Amkeer
- Start date
- Status
No. If the user is divorced from the cost, there is overuse. Make something "free" and of course there will be massive demand. Far too many citizens are shielded from the cost because they have insurance that is almost fully funded by their employer or government.
When I had my surgery, you can be sure I asked doctors how much things cost and how could I get the best deal. I had insurance, but why shouldn't I treat this purchase as any other and demand fair value?
It's this disconnect between cost and consumer that drives overuse. I know people who have absolutely no clue what their medical treatments actually cost. That's not good. It kinds of like the pay-as-you-go tax system we have, and then fools are happy to get a "refund" on April 15th. Doh!
Of course you are going to get treatment for your wifes cancer (hopefully that's a hypothetical question). If you are fully insured, do you care what it costs?
QED.
No. If the user is divorced from the cost, there is overuse. Make something "free" and of course there will be massive demand. Far too many citizens are shielded from the cost because they have insurance that is almost fully funded by their employer or government.
When I had my surgery, you can be sure I asked doctors how much things cost and how could I get the best deal. I had insurance, but why shouldn't I treat this purchase as any other and demand fair value?
It's this disconnect between cost and consumer that drives overuse. I know people who have absolutely no clue what their medical treatments actually cost. That's not good. It kinds of like the pay-as-you-go tax system we have, and then fools are happy to get a "refund" on April 15th. Doh!
Of course you are going to get treatment for your wifes cancer (hopefully that's a hypothetical question). If you are fully insured, do you care what it costs? What about the many more frequent less serious situations - are you going to wisely use the "free" health care resources?
QED.
*** EDIT - sorry about the mess. My browser went berserk. ***
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
No. If the user is divorced from the cost, there is overuse.
I don't necessarily agree, keith. Medical visits, treatments, E.R. visits, doctor appointments ..they are not on my list of favorite things to do. They are inconveniences. They disrupt my life. I have had a script for blood work on my desk for 2 months because I don't want to be bothered to go to the hospital to have it done (just routine annual test for diabetes, and liver function). I don't want to go to my doctor every 6 months to get my scripts renewed. If I use medical services ...I need medical services. Now I can see pediatrics being over used a bit ..but otherwise, unless there is a mass mental preoccupation with somatic complants ..who in their right mind goes to a doctor or use a medical service for the fun of it??
Bottom line: Any other modern industrial nation that had our economic clout would not have half as much per capita revenue channeled to this sector. They would fund it in some other manner, would deliver more services to the entire population, and do it at a tremendously reduced cost and, given that they had our economic clout, would have no "rationing" of services.
I don't necessarily agree, keith. Medical visits, treatments, E.R. visits, doctor appointments ..they are not on my list of favorite things to do. They are inconveniences. They disrupt my life. I have had a script for blood work on my desk for 2 months because I don't want to be bothered to go to the hospital to have it done (just routine annual test for diabetes, and liver function). I don't want to go to my doctor every 6 months to get my scripts renewed. If I use medical services ...I need medical services. Now I can see pediatrics being over used a bit ..but otherwise, unless there is a mass mental preoccupation with somatic complants ..who in their right mind goes to a doctor or use a medical service for the fun of it??
Bottom line: Any other modern industrial nation that had our economic clout would not have half as much per capita revenue channeled to this sector. They would fund it in some other manner, would deliver more services to the entire population, and do it at a tremendously reduced cost and, given that they had our economic clout, would have no "rationing" of services.
Ya know, I simply get ****** off reading a thread like this. I have to ask, why is Al the only person on here who recognized that a good portion of the cost is due to nothing other than fraudulent behaviour by trial lawyers? In fact the answer to the question as to what allows this to go on is right here in this very thread, most of you either don't know it's going on or do not care......shame on you!!!! We have trial lawyers soliciting and encouraging people who are perfectly fine to file suits knowing that the insurance companies are likely to settle with the cost of defense being so high. In Florida, they were actually paying PIs to locate people who had surgery performed by certain wealthy retired doctors in the past. Then they solicit them saying, "Hey, you had back surgery three years ago, are you sure your back feels OK......if you'll tell me it's not, I can get you 5k to 20K dollars". Probably only one in ten to twenty suits or claims have any validity. The insurance premiums paid were supposed to be there to take care of the real mistakes that can and do happen. When you add in thousands upon thousands of false cases every month, what do you think is going to happen to the premiums? Our whole legal system was built upon the premise that the public would not tolerate gross and wholesale fraud and would seek truth and justice....for it's the public that sits on juries......and ultimately the public that also passes laws. Our founding fathers recognized that this is the only protection against abuse of the right to sue.
I believe it used to be illegal for laywers to advertise and encourage false suits. Why is this praactice legal, it's more dangerous than sellng drugs. Haven't you all seen the billboards that say, "Auto accident, you are entitled to something...call us". We've gotten so corrupt that they don't even bother to mention being hurt as a pre-requisite, and they don't mention whether the person being enticed to sue was at fault either, evidently none of that matters anymore to you people.
We're too stupid (ie. tolerant and unable to recognize fraud for what it is) now to even deserve to have the right to sue. Perhaps the greatest stupidity of all is the millions upon millions who think this behaviour only affects the insurance companies as if they print money for themselves......wake up folks, the money comes from you and me.
1911
I believe it used to be illegal for laywers to advertise and encourage false suits. Why is this praactice legal, it's more dangerous than sellng drugs. Haven't you all seen the billboards that say, "Auto accident, you are entitled to something...call us". We've gotten so corrupt that they don't even bother to mention being hurt as a pre-requisite, and they don't mention whether the person being enticed to sue was at fault either, evidently none of that matters anymore to you people.
We're too stupid (ie. tolerant and unable to recognize fraud for what it is) now to even deserve to have the right to sue. Perhaps the greatest stupidity of all is the millions upon millions who think this behaviour only affects the insurance companies as if they print money for themselves......wake up folks, the money comes from you and me.
1911
You can not fight the "legal monopoly."
Too many of the elite class earn money via that monopoly.
Another factor can be seen in Congress, where lawyer is, by far, the most common profession of those politicians.
Isn't it interesting how the American public, with a few individual exceptions, has been brainwashed? What I mean by this is the all-too-common knee-jerk responses the average American makes against those "d@mn unions," "d@mn welfare cases," etc when the largest monopolies that harm the common folks the most, such as the AMA (doctors) and the legal monopoly are respected by most folks.
As for the "welfare cases," even during the worst of the "fraud years" when individuals bilked the system for every dollar distributed via welfare to individuals many more dollars were doled out to corporate entities.
Cargill Corporation, a privately-owned multi-billion dollar firm received HUGE tax payer provided gratuitites to entice them to build a plant in Nebraska. Many studies over the years confirm the cost to the individual tax payer with little to no recovery of those allocated dollars back to the tax payer.
Wealth redistribution to the "little folks" receives enormous amounts of negative publicity yet the larger amount of redistribution to the already-wealthy is acceptable!!!!!!!!
I am convinced there is a "class war" ongoing within the USA. It is hard to prove. The wealthy ruling elites.... at all levels of society, control the mass media, the schools, politics, etc.
In a nutshell.... the more things change the more they stay the same.
The one BIG positive about the USA, especially when compared to other societies and countries, present and past, is that our ruling elites are mainly benevolent and allow just enough wealth to trickle down to fend off insurrection. However, if the greed level becomes too great I foresee future severe social problems within the Union.
Too many of the elite class earn money via that monopoly.
Another factor can be seen in Congress, where lawyer is, by far, the most common profession of those politicians.
Isn't it interesting how the American public, with a few individual exceptions, has been brainwashed? What I mean by this is the all-too-common knee-jerk responses the average American makes against those "d@mn unions," "d@mn welfare cases," etc when the largest monopolies that harm the common folks the most, such as the AMA (doctors) and the legal monopoly are respected by most folks.
As for the "welfare cases," even during the worst of the "fraud years" when individuals bilked the system for every dollar distributed via welfare to individuals many more dollars were doled out to corporate entities.
Cargill Corporation, a privately-owned multi-billion dollar firm received HUGE tax payer provided gratuitites to entice them to build a plant in Nebraska. Many studies over the years confirm the cost to the individual tax payer with little to no recovery of those allocated dollars back to the tax payer.
Wealth redistribution to the "little folks" receives enormous amounts of negative publicity yet the larger amount of redistribution to the already-wealthy is acceptable!!!!!!!!
I am convinced there is a "class war" ongoing within the USA. It is hard to prove. The wealthy ruling elites.... at all levels of society, control the mass media, the schools, politics, etc.
In a nutshell.... the more things change the more they stay the same.
The one BIG positive about the USA, especially when compared to other societies and countries, present and past, is that our ruling elites are mainly benevolent and allow just enough wealth to trickle down to fend off insurrection. However, if the greed level becomes too great I foresee future severe social problems within the Union.
Excellent post by obbop with many well written ideas. I did have some more opinions and cvomments on your post and the topic in general.
1) Theoreteically, the fraud imposed against all of us by some of us and a bunch of malevolent personal injury trial lawyers could be ended by juries excercising a little bit of common sense. One of the reasons that he fraud is so widespread and the defendants feel forced to move towards settlement is that the defendents are always scared they will get an idiot jury like the one on the McDonalds hot coffee spill case. If an insurance company knew it could rely on sensible juries, they would let all fraudulent cases go to court for a while (at a significant expense up front) and be lost by the plaintiffs. After enough consistent losses on their fraud cases, the personal injury/trial laywer industry would disssapear instead of thrive. I did read a few years back in USA today that Walmart was considering that strategy because they felt the easy settlements was costing more in the long run due to encouraging folks to bring on more suits. They were pondering a fight them all strategy to try and stop the nonsense. We must understand here that the plaintiff laywers lose substantial amounts of money/time when they lose a case. Enough losses and then they would have to go get real jobs outside of the fraud industry. In fact, this problem has gotten way worse than it was 50 years ago under the same laws. What has changed?.....answer: We tolerate what we would not tolerate years ago, we were more honest, and we beleived in working for money instead of extorting it. IF someone did opt for fraud, back then, a jury of peers could see it for what it is and had great disdain for it.
Also, laws could be passed requiring the plaintiff side to pay the defendents court costs in a loss (I believe saome countries in Europe do this if not all of them).
Also, the myriad folks who go to court with severe back damage in traction on Monday but get caught power lifting the next tday in the gym after helping their friends move their heavy furniture shoul dbe tosed in jail for fraud. I will be most willing to pay the taxes necessary to put them there since I'm already paying the "lawsuit" tax anyway to all businesses that I buy from to cover their legal and insurance expenses from fraud lawsuits. If you try to extort of defraud some entity by any other means than a false lawsuit, you can be tossed in jail. Lawsuits provide a tolerated loophole.
2) I totally disagree with you on doctors and the AMA. Doctors are well educated individuals who provide a service. Trial lawyers are generally not very well educated (I've seen many who could not pass engineering school/medical school/and even accounting school, etc fly through law school)individuals who do not provide a legitimate service, the one they provide is called fraud/extortion. It's a serrvice we could do without. Even hookers and drug dealers at least provide something of substance. Now I am aware there are many doctors making fortunes but I have also met 2 doctors now (I don't meet a lot of them) who have quit their practices due ot malpractice insurance costs even though they both say they have never had a claim file done them. One went back to Canada and the other is working in computers!!!! Can you imagine being a car mechanic or an engineer but you cannot do work your profession because of extortion?
I totally agree with your assessment about the system hiddenly being rigged for the elite and the average jabrony on the street being clueless about it. You're right on the money. ****, look who just ran for Vice President (Mr. Fraud himself Edwards)..and the public was supposed to entrust him to look out for the little guy? This is an extorting multi-millionaire who worked hard to raise insurance rates for all working class folks while enriching himself at their expense. Yes, congeess is full of lawyers and it will evenmtually be the undoing of our country.
One last point, I disagree with you on the benevolence thing. They do allow some wealth to trickle down but it doesn't come from them and it doesn't spring from benevolence. First, it comes from you and me, the working middle class. Second, it comes to keep social order and to control a class of people who are now essentially forced to vote for the "dole it out party". It's a way to own people and thier votes at the expense of others that have to pay for it.
Anyway, your post was awesome and the best on this thread.
1911
1) Theoreteically, the fraud imposed against all of us by some of us and a bunch of malevolent personal injury trial lawyers could be ended by juries excercising a little bit of common sense. One of the reasons that he fraud is so widespread and the defendants feel forced to move towards settlement is that the defendents are always scared they will get an idiot jury like the one on the McDonalds hot coffee spill case. If an insurance company knew it could rely on sensible juries, they would let all fraudulent cases go to court for a while (at a significant expense up front) and be lost by the plaintiffs. After enough consistent losses on their fraud cases, the personal injury/trial laywer industry would disssapear instead of thrive. I did read a few years back in USA today that Walmart was considering that strategy because they felt the easy settlements was costing more in the long run due to encouraging folks to bring on more suits. They were pondering a fight them all strategy to try and stop the nonsense. We must understand here that the plaintiff laywers lose substantial amounts of money/time when they lose a case. Enough losses and then they would have to go get real jobs outside of the fraud industry. In fact, this problem has gotten way worse than it was 50 years ago under the same laws. What has changed?.....answer: We tolerate what we would not tolerate years ago, we were more honest, and we beleived in working for money instead of extorting it. IF someone did opt for fraud, back then, a jury of peers could see it for what it is and had great disdain for it.
Also, laws could be passed requiring the plaintiff side to pay the defendents court costs in a loss (I believe saome countries in Europe do this if not all of them).
Also, the myriad folks who go to court with severe back damage in traction on Monday but get caught power lifting the next tday in the gym after helping their friends move their heavy furniture shoul dbe tosed in jail for fraud. I will be most willing to pay the taxes necessary to put them there since I'm already paying the "lawsuit" tax anyway to all businesses that I buy from to cover their legal and insurance expenses from fraud lawsuits. If you try to extort of defraud some entity by any other means than a false lawsuit, you can be tossed in jail. Lawsuits provide a tolerated loophole.
2) I totally disagree with you on doctors and the AMA. Doctors are well educated individuals who provide a service. Trial lawyers are generally not very well educated (I've seen many who could not pass engineering school/medical school/and even accounting school, etc fly through law school)individuals who do not provide a legitimate service, the one they provide is called fraud/extortion. It's a serrvice we could do without. Even hookers and drug dealers at least provide something of substance. Now I am aware there are many doctors making fortunes but I have also met 2 doctors now (I don't meet a lot of them) who have quit their practices due ot malpractice insurance costs even though they both say they have never had a claim file done them. One went back to Canada and the other is working in computers!!!! Can you imagine being a car mechanic or an engineer but you cannot do work your profession because of extortion?
I totally agree with your assessment about the system hiddenly being rigged for the elite and the average jabrony on the street being clueless about it. You're right on the money. ****, look who just ran for Vice President (Mr. Fraud himself Edwards)..and the public was supposed to entrust him to look out for the little guy? This is an extorting multi-millionaire who worked hard to raise insurance rates for all working class folks while enriching himself at their expense. Yes, congeess is full of lawyers and it will evenmtually be the undoing of our country.
One last point, I disagree with you on the benevolence thing. They do allow some wealth to trickle down but it doesn't come from them and it doesn't spring from benevolence. First, it comes from you and me, the working middle class. Second, it comes to keep social order and to control a class of people who are now essentially forced to vote for the "dole it out party". It's a way to own people and thier votes at the expense of others that have to pay for it.
Anyway, your post was awesome and the best on this thread.
1911
Is health care really the problem.
Of coarse you all can see today I'm on my high horse, But here goes.
Quit paying those premiums, quit going to the doctor, quit giving into the government and you will see them go down.
Learn about alternative medicine, become health conscience, do some ******* exercise. I realize that some health problems are genetic and some just happen, but of the 1,000's and 1,000 that are being treated by doctors, how much of it could be prevented?
If you should exercise for your good health and don't who's fault is that.
If you should eat an apple a day for your good health and don't who's fault is that
If you are 300lbs overweight who's fault is that?
If you smoke who's fault is that?
If you drink too much who's fault is that?
If you live a stressful life who's fault is that?
If you pay $5000+ in health care who's fault is that?
If you live above your means who's fault is that?
You see, it's not them that needs changing, It's yourself. If you changed everything about the above list and everyone did that. Then the healthcare problem would dissapear. I do believe.
Of coarse you all can see today I'm on my high horse, But here goes.
Quit paying those premiums, quit going to the doctor, quit giving into the government and you will see them go down.
Learn about alternative medicine, become health conscience, do some ******* exercise. I realize that some health problems are genetic and some just happen, but of the 1,000's and 1,000 that are being treated by doctors, how much of it could be prevented?
If you should exercise for your good health and don't who's fault is that.
If you should eat an apple a day for your good health and don't who's fault is that
If you are 300lbs overweight who's fault is that?
If you smoke who's fault is that?
If you drink too much who's fault is that?
If you live a stressful life who's fault is that?
If you pay $5000+ in health care who's fault is that?
If you live above your means who's fault is that?
You see, it's not them that needs changing, It's yourself. If you changed everything about the above list and everyone did that. Then the healthcare problem would dissapear. I do believe.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I agree with every "if you".
but "you will see them go down. "
..will never happen.
but "you will see them go down. "
..will never happen.
Well, MSPARKS and Gary, let me totally disagree.
It is good to do all the right things and try to live a healthy life-style, but this will probably increase costs over the long term, not reduce them as after all we are talking about cost reduction.
Healthy life style simply won't reduce the healthcare cost crisis we face today to a signifigant degree. In fact healthier people tend to live longer and consume much more medical services for a longer time at the end of their life, especially in long term care.
Definitely try to live a healthy life style and do the right thing and don't abuse the system. I'm just saying that any cost reduction overall will not be an end result.
Smoking is on the decline as well as consumption of hard liquor, yet Cancer is on the rise. We've had a lot of experience with that in our family. It's pretty easy today to think your healthy have something like an anurysm or heart attack and walk away owing $100K pretty easy. The doctors may fix you up physically, but you're financially ruined. That's why you have to try and protect yourself with insurance also.
[ July 16, 2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: haley10 ]
I think you make a great post here with some great points Msparks. You've got to be right to a large extent but the costs may not go down as much as you think. Folks are going to get sick and come down with serious ailments especially as they get older regardless of lifestyle. Have you seen anybody live to 120 because they took better care of themselves. I have also seen my share of very thin, healthy eating, heavy exercise jogger type who are apparently in way better than average shape suddenly die of heart attacks or develop cancer even in their late thirties and forties. I also know many fried chicken eating overweight jabrionies in their 60's and 70' still rolling along somehow. I don't understand it.
1911
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
It's in the genes.
That may be true, but over a lifetime, someone who is healthier will have less cost over time.
I really wonder if we quit paying premiums, quit letting them dictate to us what we should pay and such if they wouldn't come down.
FYI, my mother in law was 60 years old when she started taking meds, she ended up in the hospital becuase of heart trouble and they had a **** of time tying to find any info on her. I don't think she had been to a doctor in 20 years. No BP medicine, nothing.
she smoked and drank like a fish. Of coarse she only lasted about 2 years after that, dying of a heart attack. But overall I would be she really didn't "spend" that much on health care. I know she spent a lot more of it on booze and cigs. Plus being overweight by about 75 lbs.
You we're all going to die in the end. Could be sooner could be later, either way I'm going to try to take care of myself the best I can. If I had to pay for healthcare for myself, I will be very concience on what where and who I spend my money with. I really think it's negotiable just like everything else in life. You go in with cash, I think you can work out some kind of deal.
I can't remember where I saw it, but 10 or 15 years ago there was study that showed that smokers required less $$$ for health care in their lifetime. Their shorter lifespans more than made up for the expense of caring for their smoking related health problemes.
i wouldn't be surprised to find that the study was flawed, but it's an interesting concept.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
This tends to be true. If you're uninsured, aka "self pay", you can indeed get a better rate than the insurance company negotiates for. This I've seen time and time again. It probably will not work with routine office visits ..but even for someone like my podiatrist ..she feels obligated to cut an uninsured patient a break beyond what the insurance compant allots for the given treatment.
Now we just have to retrain an entire populaton that has lived the absolute highest standard of living and the biggest economic boom in the history of the world to adopt third world practices for paying for medical care.
Gary this has worked for me, especially with office visits. In fact you aren't really getting a break. When you pay cash there isn't all the huge administrative expense of a small copay and the filing and waiting to collect insurance. They have to charge a lot more when insurance is paying to cover it just to get the same "real" return.
Third party payers make for a lot of additional expense and delay over cash.
If I pay you now, you have not lost all the potential interest or other investment income for months until insuror's pay. It improves the cash flow situation and eliminates all the claim processing expenses.
I have read several of those studies that the media conveniently ignores (along with the politically correct crowd) about how smokers, despite the avid proclamations of their LARGE health care costs actually cost society, on the whole, less than non-smokers.
Die younger and avoid the multiple diseases so many elderly fight. Mom is currenly fighting her 4th cancer. The expenses are incredible and I wouldn't be surprised her expenses are worth those of 15 smokers who died young!!!!!!
Another savings is in social security costs. Businesses save by paying less in pension amounts.
Smokers should be treated as heroes since they are kind enuff to, generally, die younger and thus be less of a burden on society.
You're welcome.
cough
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
This is true. The "copay" (the patient paid fee per visit) was specifically introduced to accomodate the cost of administration of insurance claims for the provider.
- Status
Similar threads
