The Rich get richer and the Poor get......Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like Tenn. old plan:
Quote:
While TennCare consistently covered between 1.2 and 1.4 million people; costs increased from $2.5 billion in 1995 to $8 billion by the time of TennCare's restructuring. It consumed a third of the state budget including nearly all state revenue growth. When the illusion of "free" care is fostered, it is always over-utilized.

And:
Quote:
Studies indicate that only 55% of those added to TennCare came from the uninsured population, while the rest came from a decline in private coverage.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...form_97570.html
 
^ what a piece of trash article.

Quote:

Tennessee physicians often spent more time arguing with government bureaucrats over care than they did providing it to their patients.



How many "bureaucrats"? How many doctors? What's the crat/doc ratio? If one crat hassled one doctor, 40 hours a week, that would be accurate.

Quote:

TennCare's gold plated coverage included every doctor's appointment and prescription. As such, patients with a cold opted to charge the state hundreds of dollars for doctor visits and medicine instead of paying $5 out of pocket for over-the-counter cold medicine.



This article lacks any sources or peer review.

Do those anecdotes happen? Yes. As often as they'd have you believe? No.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The total annual budget for TennCare increased from $2.64 billion in 1994 to more than $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2005, with essentially no change in the number of participants enrolled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare


You forgot that elsewhere in the nation cost also sky rocket and health coverage cut in the private sectors during the same period of time.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
The total annual budget for TennCare increased from $2.64 billion in 1994 to more than $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2005, with essentially no change in the number of participants enrolled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare


You forgot that elsewhere in the nation cost also sky rocket and health coverage cut in the private sectors during the same period of time.


..and that demographics and medical procedural "creep" both grew in impacts radically over the same period of time. The participants were naturally more expensive due to aging and the medical protocols (constructed by accountants, doctors, and lawyers for insurance and pharmaceutical, and other interests) have expanded to make even more expensive procedures "routine".


So I really don't see what the facts do to support some assertion other than big business cashing in on the opportunity to shake whatever nickels can be had.

I'm surprised you aren't giving them an "attaboy!" for managing to pull off the coup under "rule of law", Tempest. They managed to point the gun at your head ..now pay up and kneel to your Suzerain. Sounds perfectly legal to me. Don't get upset that you weren't chosen to be the Sheriff of Rottingham
grin2.gif


More hollow and disingenuous blather.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan


The cost of insurance is primarily a function of the size of the risk pool. The smaller the pool, the riskier it gets hence the cost gets higher.



That can be a factor, it's certainly not the only factor (I would suggest the composition of the group is a larger factor than the size). Regardless, reduce the payout, and reduce the perils to be indemnified against, and you reduce the premium by definition.

And that's what I, and many others, do.

I'm OK with paying almost all of that first $5K, my medical expenses in the last decade have been less than $1K so I think the risk is pretty low, but if I have to pay it I can. Similarly, I don't need coverage for mental health issues, booze, obesity, drugs, eyeglasses, maternity, ingrown toenails, or the myriad other things that you can buy coverage for. I'm more than willing to shop the little stuff around and write a check for it when I need it. I am willing to pay for coverage for the EXTRAORDINARY events like an appendix blowing out as Drew had, and that's it.

I'm doing something to cut costs. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind that my way will work better than Washington's way.

I have $10K deductibles on some commercial property. I think it's good business to let an insurance company have as little of my money as possible. You may disagree and that's your business.
 
If it is because of delayed treatment that cost exponential sky rocket cost that people are against high deductible plan, why not make these checks mandatory on a regular basis? at the insurance company operated clinic to reduce overhead?

Dental insurance provide preventive care by making them mandatory in the plan, and it seems to work.

One of the biggest problem we have is the tug of war between insurance companies, patients, care providers, uninsured patients, lawyers (who act as the arbitrator and the "insurance" against odd ball screw up of insurance companies' auto decline policies), etc. If you can remove these kind of overhead from most of these treatment, how much efficiency and saving can you get? Doctors have to lower their prices and relocates their practices due to competition and people can cross shop out of town to reduce expenses, or tolerate lower quality care of inconveniences to save money (imagine running and MRI machine 247 and have a happy hour between 2am-5am for the lower income folks).
 
Quote:
Dental insurance provide preventive care by making them mandatory in the plan, and it seems to work.

That's usually a $60 cleaning and maybe some x-rays. How much does a full battery of "preventative" tests cost for health insurance?

The idea that you can simply "prevent" your way to lower cost simply is not correct.

Quote:
Doctors have to lower their prices and relocates their practices due to competition and people can cross shop out of town to reduce expenses, or tolerate lower quality care of inconveniences to save money (imagine running and MRI machine 247 and have a happy hour between 2am-5am for the lower income folks).

thumbsup2.gif
But that won't happen with a third party payer.
 
This fact should not be a surprise...

The bottom line is that our country has stopped being a manufacturing powerhouse because greedy companies want to pay slave wages to workers..

When a country stops making value added products they cease to be a viable nation.

The only thing that will help undo this is to stop unconstitutional trade agreements (NAFTA GATT WTO) signed into law by all elite parties in the USA, both gov't and business.

Then severe tariffs should be imposed on all goods coming in from countries that are not on a even playing field with the US.

Only then can we expect to see the middle class revived.
 
The middle class was constructed with the concentration and containment of wealth in this nation. The Fair Trade Laws were abolished in 1973 ..which was the last time we had real wage increases.

By that time we had competition for our manufacturing. We didn't need all of that output. We've been retreating to "normal" ..which is pretty darn pathetic.
 
Originally Posted By: Vizzy
This fact should not be a surprise...

The bottom line is that our country has stopped being a manufacturing powerhouse because greedy companies want to pay slave wages to workers..

When a country stops making value added products they cease to be a viable nation.

The only thing that will help undo this is to stop unconstitutional trade agreements (NAFTA GATT WTO) signed into law by all elite parties in the USA, both gov't and business.

Then severe tariffs should be imposed on all goods coming in from countries that are not on a even playing field with the US.

Only then can we expect to see the middle class revived.


out of curiosiy how are those unconstitutional?
 
btw when you go from 70% production to 70% consuming you will get problems. notice how everything around us screams consumption not production. they have (i think) purposely attached us to the govt teet. where we look to the govt to solve our issues not ourselves and our production (companies). which in turn gives the govt more power over us bc as of now they support 10-15% of Americans. also notice the govt is not doing anything within the realm of reality to get more jobs back in the US.. there is a reason for this. socialism (a form of) is just around the corner and we are letting it happen one vote at a time. does Amero ring a bell with anyone? i used to think there was no way they change the our currency. now i think that they have set in motion to do just that
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mikeg5
Originally Posted By: Vizzy
This fact should not be a surprise...

The bottom line is that our country has stopped being a manufacturing powerhouse because greedy companies want to pay slave wages to workers..

When a country stops making value added products they cease to be a viable nation.

The only thing that will help undo this is to stop unconstitutional trade agreements (NAFTA GATT WTO) signed into law by all elite parties in the USA, both gov't and business.

Then severe tariffs should be imposed on all goods coming in from countries that are not on a even playing field with the US.

Only then can we expect to see the middle class revived.


out of curiosiy how are those unconstitutional?


All these agreements allow bodies that are outside the US and not our congress create trade rules and policy...

The Constitution allows only the US Congess to make and set rules regarding trade in the USA.
 
Originally Posted By: Win
Regardless, reduce the payout, and reduce the perils to be indemnified against, and you reduce the premium by definition.


I'd agree that it should by definition.

Oz doctors, employers and insurance companies got the tort reform that they asked for that was driving up costs.

There's no money for pain and suffering, and less than 10% permanent disability, you can go suck eggs.

Doctor leaves a theatre's worth of tools inside you, and he's only required to cover the cost of getting them out.

Bloke at work got nailed on his motorbike at a roundabout, and his kevlar jeans aren't covered, as he gave the medics permission to cut them to staunch the bleeding (while in a state of trauma).

Another guy's 6 year old son got backed over by a pensioner at a fete, and the insurance company was taking them to court for failing to sign off the case as "complete" when the results of the incident can't possibly be known until he's grown up.

Massive, massive reductions in exposure to the insurance industry and doctors.

And guess what the cost savings to the public have been ?

More expensive doctors, and more expensive insurance.
 
Oh ..you mean the other shoe of tort reform. I see ..well there is that too (as though that would never be the outcome).

"Please give us the advantages we need to REALLY make a killing!"

As you can see ..wealth needs help
frown.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top