This is a false question. I would pull the plug on 2 million dollars payed in fees for ICU treatment. As long as you have an indirect payer through insurance, healthcare will gouge. Cost keep increasing but what we are getting is questionable.
No wonder we are going broke..
- Thread starter mechanicx
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The question was, would you pull the plug on the newborn? If you do, you save the system $2 million.
Or would you pull the plug on the cancer procedure to save $500k for the system?
The question is why are there procedures that cost $2M or 500k in the first place. Sure there's R&D and liability insurance in place that cost an arm and a leg, but why other developed countries around the world has no problem like this? Why is this unique to the US?
If the answer is because we are being gouged by profiteer in the system, well, we should fix that.
If the answer is because it is how much it cost to extend the life of someone with terminal illness (or brain dead), when the rest of the world consider them certain death, then maybe they are dead and we are just prolonging the inevitable to profit the profiteer.
Why is this unique to US and not the rest of the world?
The question was, would you pull the plug on the newborn? If you do, you save the system $2 million.
Or would you pull the plug on the cancer procedure to save $500k for the system?
The question is why are there procedures that cost $2M or 500k in the first place. Sure there's R&D and liability insurance in place that cost an arm and a leg, but why other developed countries around the world has no problem like this? Why is this unique to the US?
If the answer is because we are being gouged by profiteer in the system, well, we should fix that.
If the answer is because it is how much it cost to extend the life of someone with terminal illness (or brain dead), when the rest of the world consider them certain death, then maybe they are dead and we are just prolonging the inevitable to profit the profiteer.
Why is this unique to US and not the rest of the world?
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
You guys are hesitant to address the demand issue. Would you, or would you not, pull the plug?
Sure, why not, pull the plug.
You guys are hesitant to address the demand issue. Would you, or would you not, pull the plug?
Sure, why not, pull the plug.
The prices we pay for medical care is robbery.
Originally Posted By: grampi
I don't know why our leaders aren't doing more to bring down the cost of healthcare. It seems to me that would be the logical place to start if they want to improve our healthcare system. Costs are out of control!!!
The politicians serve the lobbiests. Follow the money . Bankers. big medicine, insurance companies,oil companies and military contractors are the biggest lobby . Where have all the bailouts gone? To the biggest lobbiers. No wonder we have the problems we do.
I don't know why our leaders aren't doing more to bring down the cost of healthcare. It seems to me that would be the logical place to start if they want to improve our healthcare system. Costs are out of control!!!
The politicians serve the lobbiests. Follow the money . Bankers. big medicine, insurance companies,oil companies and military contractors are the biggest lobby . Where have all the bailouts gone? To the biggest lobbiers. No wonder we have the problems we do.
Steve's got that right.
Government of the lobbyists, by the politicians, for the corporations.
Ed
Government of the lobbyists, by the politicians, for the corporations.
Ed
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The question is why are there procedures that cost $2M or 500k in the first place. Sure there's R&D and liability insurance in place that cost an arm and a leg, but why other developed countries around the world has no problem like this? Why is this unique to the US?
Which other developed countries? I lived in a few and used their fabulous systems: Krankenkasse in Germany, Medicare Australia and NHS UK. I will take this Providence PPO I pay in full out of my pocket for any time of the day. Other developed countries simply have no access to quite a few things we take here for granted. Most of you argue about the taste of the fruit you never saw..
The question is why are there procedures that cost $2M or 500k in the first place. Sure there's R&D and liability insurance in place that cost an arm and a leg, but why other developed countries around the world has no problem like this? Why is this unique to the US?
Which other developed countries? I lived in a few and used their fabulous systems: Krankenkasse in Germany, Medicare Australia and NHS UK. I will take this Providence PPO I pay in full out of my pocket for any time of the day. Other developed countries simply have no access to quite a few things we take here for granted. Most of you argue about the taste of the fruit you never saw..
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The question was, would you pull the plug on the newborn? If you do, you save the system $2 million.
Or would you pull the plug on the cancer procedure to save $500k for the system?
How about working to get the cost from $2 million down to $1 million? That's what I'm talking about.
The question was, would you pull the plug on the newborn? If you do, you save the system $2 million.
Or would you pull the plug on the cancer procedure to save $500k for the system?
How about working to get the cost from $2 million down to $1 million? That's what I'm talking about.
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
I suspect the NICU costs $2million because there is one paying patient for every 10 who don't pay. So the one who has insurance gets charged enough to cover the costs of the other 10.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Sure, there is a social responsibility for us to help the less fortunate. The question is, why does the social responsibility go one way? What is the social responsibility of those who have a half dozen babies with as many babydaddies, or choose to drop out of school before they graduate, or choose addictions to drugs or alcohol, etc?
I think it's time for social responsibility to be a two way street. Not just soaking those who do the right things, spend less than they make, save, get educated, wake up and go to work, etc.
That goes for all levels of economic welfare. No welfare for the rich and too big to fail. No more welfare for those who are not doing their part to improve their situations. If they are not back in school, learning a trade, getting clean or whatever it takes, then they are not upholding their part of the social contract and others should not be expected to help those who are unwilling to help themselves.
Instead of means testing assistance, I think we need to perform some sort of social contract qualification that requires folks to demonstrate they are addressing their contribution to their circumstance.
The social contract needs to go both ways, and right now it's largely a one way street.
Why should I have to come home after a long days work and mow my own lawn when someone in the PJs not only didn't work, but someone is paid to care for their property?
Why should I have to pay for prescriptions when someone from the PJ's can walk into a pharmacy and get free medications after a tough day of sitting outside enjoying a 40oz or six?
OK, my rant is done. There are 6-10 people on welfare waiting for me to get back to work!
I suspect the NICU costs $2million because there is one paying patient for every 10 who don't pay. So the one who has insurance gets charged enough to cover the costs of the other 10.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Sure, there is a social responsibility for us to help the less fortunate. The question is, why does the social responsibility go one way? What is the social responsibility of those who have a half dozen babies with as many babydaddies, or choose to drop out of school before they graduate, or choose addictions to drugs or alcohol, etc?
I think it's time for social responsibility to be a two way street. Not just soaking those who do the right things, spend less than they make, save, get educated, wake up and go to work, etc.
That goes for all levels of economic welfare. No welfare for the rich and too big to fail. No more welfare for those who are not doing their part to improve their situations. If they are not back in school, learning a trade, getting clean or whatever it takes, then they are not upholding their part of the social contract and others should not be expected to help those who are unwilling to help themselves.
Instead of means testing assistance, I think we need to perform some sort of social contract qualification that requires folks to demonstrate they are addressing their contribution to their circumstance.
The social contract needs to go both ways, and right now it's largely a one way street.
Why should I have to come home after a long days work and mow my own lawn when someone in the PJs not only didn't work, but someone is paid to care for their property?
Why should I have to pay for prescriptions when someone from the PJ's can walk into a pharmacy and get free medications after a tough day of sitting outside enjoying a 40oz or six?
OK, my rant is done. There are 6-10 people on welfare waiting for me to get back to work!
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The question was, would you pull the plug on the newborn? If you do, you save the system $2 million.
Or would you pull the plug on the cancer procedure to save $500k for the system?
How about working to get the cost from $2 million down to $1 million? That's what I'm talking about.
Do you know how much the items I mentioned above cost? Nothing in the listed items is cheap. There definitely is wasted resources because of the free market structure of the health care industry but you can't have such a dramatic reduction in costs without shifting the paradigm.
But, would you be willing to go to a single payer (federal government) and single provider (government run hospitals) system like the Veterans Affairs?
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
The question was, would you pull the plug on the newborn? If you do, you save the system $2 million.
Or would you pull the plug on the cancer procedure to save $500k for the system?
How about working to get the cost from $2 million down to $1 million? That's what I'm talking about.
Do you know how much the items I mentioned above cost? Nothing in the listed items is cheap. There definitely is wasted resources because of the free market structure of the health care industry but you can't have such a dramatic reduction in costs without shifting the paradigm.
But, would you be willing to go to a single payer (federal government) and single provider (government run hospitals) system like the Veterans Affairs?
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
No, I'm saying that instead of just having some large bureaucratic program that hands out money without examining the choices made by the one asking for the money, the person who wants the assistance is evaluated by those who are actually providing the money.
If you lost your job due to no fault of your own, you get help. If you made choices that got yourself fired, addicted, or whatever, too bad. Go see the guy who got you knocked up and get him to help you pay, etc.
Yes, if I screw up, it's my families issue, no one else's. Others shouldn't have to pay for my mistakes.
Why should I have to pay for the mistakes of others?
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
No, I'm saying that instead of just having some large bureaucratic program that hands out money without examining the choices made by the one asking for the money, the person who wants the assistance is evaluated by those who are actually providing the money.
If you lost your job due to no fault of your own, you get help. If you made choices that got yourself fired, addicted, or whatever, too bad. Go see the guy who got you knocked up and get him to help you pay, etc.
Yes, if I screw up, it's my families issue, no one else's. Others shouldn't have to pay for my mistakes.
Why should I have to pay for the mistakes of others?
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
And the only sensible way to do this is...
(wait for it...)
...to require everyone who is in good shape financially either to buy health insurance or to pay into the system through fines.
Oh, wait...
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
And the only sensible way to do this is...
(wait for it...)
...to require everyone who is in good shape financially either to buy health insurance or to pay into the system through fines.
Oh, wait...
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
When does that happen?
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
When does that happen?
Never understood how insurance got tied to a job - I haven't had a job since college, and never had any trouble getting the insurance I wanted.
Until now.
I just got notice, today, that my insurance premiums go up 7% on 1-1-11. There is also a notice the provider believes I am on a grandfathered plan. It looks like I'll have to waste half a day going to the local office to see what is going on and what choices, if any, are now available to me.
Thanks a bunch, Mr. President.
On a positive note, all of my state's congressional delegation, save one, that stood for re-election, will be unemployed in 2011.
Until now.
I just got notice, today, that my insurance premiums go up 7% on 1-1-11. There is also a notice the provider believes I am on a grandfathered plan. It looks like I'll have to waste half a day going to the local office to see what is going on and what choices, if any, are now available to me.
Thanks a bunch, Mr. President.
On a positive note, all of my state's congressional delegation, save one, that stood for re-election, will be unemployed in 2011.
Originally Posted By: Win
Never understood how insurance got tied to a job - I haven't had a job since college, and never had any trouble getting the insurance I wanted.
Until now.
In the 40-s there were salary caps. in order to attract talent, employers had to figure out new ways to provide benefits. that's how the employer based health insurance became so popular. Now we take it for granted.
Never understood how insurance got tied to a job - I haven't had a job since college, and never had any trouble getting the insurance I wanted.
Until now.
In the 40-s there were salary caps. in order to attract talent, employers had to figure out new ways to provide benefits. that's how the employer based health insurance became so popular. Now we take it for granted.
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
When does that happen?
If you go by what javacontour wants to do, that's what the result will be all the time.
Right now it does happen but fortunately we have quite a lot of faith based hospitals that are willing to provide free treatment. It's considered to be good community service and plays a part in maintaining their not-for-profit status.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Perhaps we start by disallowing others to be overcharged to pay for those who don't pay the bills.
If you stop the cost shifting nonsense, I think things will get better from the perspective of those paying for health insurance.
Are you saying that you will allow someone's child to die just because they have lost their job and don't have insurance.
Are you willing to accept that being done to you if you are in those shoes?
When does that happen?
If you go by what javacontour wants to do, that's what the result will be all the time.
Right now it does happen but fortunately we have quite a lot of faith based hospitals that are willing to provide free treatment. It's considered to be good community service and plays a part in maintaining their not-for-profit status.
I just see healthcare and health insurance as more of a tax than free market. Actually over 20% of taxes are going to healthcare and rising. Then you hear of people paying about $12K/year or more for insurance plus employer contribitions. So what you have is all this money going into healthcare and costs go out of control and not much is being received for all the costs. I'm not sure what the answer is but there needs to be some way to make healthcare costs accountable. Maybe insurance companies aren't doing a good enough job setting market prices since afterall it is not really their money. Maybe the real answer is to not even have health insurance at all.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I just see healthcare and health insurance as more of a tax than free market. Actually over 20% of taxes are going to healthcare and rising. Then you hear of people paying about $12K/year or more for insurance plus employer contribitions. So what you have is all this money going into healthcare and costs go out of control and not much is being received for all the costs. I'm not sure what the answer is but there needs to be some way to make healthcare costs accountable. Maybe insurance companies aren't doing a good enough job setting market prices since afterall it is not really their money. Maybe the real answer is to not even have health insurance at all.
We need preventative care and appropriate education. With the NICU patients - what happens is that we fail, as a system, to provide proper prenatal care to expectant mothers. In the process, as a society we save about $1,000. Then because of this lack of care there is a premature birth. The probability is low but it's there. So we spend [$1,000,000 - 40% contractual adjustment =] $600,000 on the NICU care.
It's like that in a lot of other areas. We have obese and unhealthy people hooked on fast food and soda drinks. There is a very high chance that these individuals will either have a heart attack or cancer. The heart attacks cost a lot of money - we have effective enough treatments to save the patients. if they died, we would have a net saving but they stay alive so there is a cost of the treatment plus the medications that they will have to use for the rest of their lives. These are quite effective meds so the lifespan is prolonged resulting in higher costs.
I just see healthcare and health insurance as more of a tax than free market. Actually over 20% of taxes are going to healthcare and rising. Then you hear of people paying about $12K/year or more for insurance plus employer contribitions. So what you have is all this money going into healthcare and costs go out of control and not much is being received for all the costs. I'm not sure what the answer is but there needs to be some way to make healthcare costs accountable. Maybe insurance companies aren't doing a good enough job setting market prices since afterall it is not really their money. Maybe the real answer is to not even have health insurance at all.
We need preventative care and appropriate education. With the NICU patients - what happens is that we fail, as a system, to provide proper prenatal care to expectant mothers. In the process, as a society we save about $1,000. Then because of this lack of care there is a premature birth. The probability is low but it's there. So we spend [$1,000,000 - 40% contractual adjustment =] $600,000 on the NICU care.
It's like that in a lot of other areas. We have obese and unhealthy people hooked on fast food and soda drinks. There is a very high chance that these individuals will either have a heart attack or cancer. The heart attacks cost a lot of money - we have effective enough treatments to save the patients. if they died, we would have a net saving but they stay alive so there is a cost of the treatment plus the medications that they will have to use for the rest of their lives. These are quite effective meds so the lifespan is prolonged resulting in higher costs.
- Status
