Health care costs have gone from about 27 billion a year in our country to over 3 TRILLION a year currently. You can't attribute that to the profits of health insurance companies. That accounts for much less than 15% of the total as you can see below. So what is driving this, and what can be done about it?

https://www.ahip.org/health-care-dollar/

Profits may be capped at 15%, but prices have been rising steadily for decades now, and let's face it that 15% is based on total costs so that figure has gone up too. Like any business they have expanded services and products to create additional revenue streams. Most of those services in your graph didn't exist or were never as expensive as they are now.

I did not say profits are capped. The problem is how did we get from 27 billion to 3 trillion in only 60 or so years? That means our spending is over 100 times greater than it was. I know inflation will account for some of that, but not even close to being most of it. I do know it cannot continue.

I will say it in the simplest terms I can for a very complex issue ….Health care is a market .But we refuse to look at it that way . The answer of course is competition in a transparent market place and informed consumers .There is of course a place for regulation .But it doesn't include 50 separate governing bodies where a consumer has to purchase coverage in their own state and governed by state mandates on coverage .Consumers should have a choice . If I don't want lactation coverage for me then I should have that option.

Obamacare was structured perfectly by design for failure ;and the beautiful thing about it in the designers eyes is that the government that designed it will never get the blame for it's ultimate failure . Then the left will say (and you are hearing it already ) "we tried a regulated Public/Private Cooperation and it did not work so we should go to full government managed health care .

I could get into other things like ;why doctors have to put so much overhead into non-care clerical work ;why when a segment of the market is permitted to perform as a free market the costs of service drops . etc etc .;but 3 AM comes early . Good night .

Let us just call s spade a spade the medical profession are avariscious b@stards, pharma are avariscious b@stards and insurers are avariscious b@stards

Let us just call s spade a spade the medical profession are avariscious b@stards, pharma are avariscious b@stards and insurers are avariscious b@stards

That is a very simple and accurate description. However it's an integral part of the capitalists creed. MO'MONEY!

Let us just call s spade a spade the medical profession are avariscious b@stards, pharma are avariscious b@stards and insurers are avariscious b@stards.

So everyone back in the 60's were all saints? I doubt that.

So why do you think those costs are rising so fast?

not quite . I would get rid of mandated insurance in favor of a direct customer -provider relationship in a fee for service arrangement . Big Parma ;Big Health Insurance became monopolies because of the rent seeker arrangements they have with state and national governments .I guess if you want to include Big Hospitals into the mix I couldn't argue .

However the recent rise in the costs can be traced to Obamacare making services less profitable . YEAH THAT's RIGHT PROFITS !!!!!

Insurers are dropping out of the market all together or making up for the loss with increased premiums . The cause is Obamacare, which imposed huge costs to insurers via federal mandates and by expanding the administrative and regulatory apparatus. That is why insurers raise premiums ;drug makers charge more ,doctors and hospitals charge more . 43 % of doctors cannot afford to take on new Medicaid patients .Average waiting times to see primary care physicians is rising to the 3 week level .As Washington keeps expanding the federal bureaucracy, more healthcare dollars are diverted from care to administration and regulatory compliance making fewer dollars available to patient care .

Then I was right. It's the old capitalist MO"MONEY thing that no matter what you do capitalists seek to increase profits. I know the repubs can blame Obama care, but for sure NOBODY wants to go back to the way it was. That should tell you something. The structure and theory is sound, and always has been since the Heritage foundation came up with it, and Romney adopted it. So the hollering is about politics, and the costs/prices is strictly good old fashion free markets.

Capitalists take no prisoners.

capitalistism doesn't survive by costing it's products above the consumer's ability to pay for it . If there is cronyism between the providers and the government then it is NOT a capitalist system . It is crony socialism. Conservative and even most of the Republicans opposed the Heritage plan as put into legislation (the HEART PLAN) by
Sen. John Chafee of RI .
The Chafee bill never came up for a vote. Republicans and Conservatives opposed it in the 90s ;and opposed it when the emperor did a c/p version of it to lie and call it a Republican plan.
Now I read the Heritage ideas and there are some major differences .
1. The so called mandate in the Heritage proposal
was not intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance it focused on catastrophic care insurance so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
2.They used a carrot .Obamacare used a stick . There were
health credit or voucher to induce people to obtain the catastrophic insurance .
3.The "mandate" was not a mandate .It was the loss of certain tax breaks .
4.The Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional and I don't care if John Roberts twisted the meaning of words to find a reason to make the law constitutional .
5.Had the emperor actually proposed the Heritage plan the left would've revolted . The Heritage plan would've reduced the role of the government ….not make an attempt by the government to take control of a good portion of the American economy.
Now the claim that Obamacare is similar to the plan passed in Massachusetts by a super majority legislature and signed reluctantly by Romney (after 8 vetoes )would be true .

You go into Walmart, the products have prices on them. Go on a car lot, the cars have prices on them. Go to Amazon, the products have prices on them. Go to the doctor, and nothing has a price on it. Prices are posted... nowhere. That's because most people don't care since they count on insurance to pay for most of it. So should it be surprising that health costs have gone up? There is no one who is paying attention.

I'll relate a story. I went in to a facility to have minor surgery done on a finger. Took about thirty minutes. When I got the bill, they had charged 5,000 for the surgical room. Bear in mind that the surgery was on a FINGER. But the insurance company then told them that they could only charge 650. How do you go from 5,000 to accepting 650? Plainly, something strange is up. There is very little competition and very little incentive to hold prices down. After all, no one asks. How many of you ask how much a doctor's visit costs?

I don't ask, but my eyes pop when I get a statement from my insurance carrier. They have a line that says "You may be billed...X" in the last column. They're usually right. Fire the middle man! Medicare for ALL! I heard there are plenty of jobs... two if you need them!

Fire the middle man! Medicare for ALL!

Yes. That makes a lot of sense. Get rid of the insurance middle man, and replace it with the federal government middle man. That would be the same fed gvmt that is currently heading towards 22 trillion in debt. You'll pardon me if I'm skeptical of your idea.

Besides all of that, it still doesn't solve the problem of run away prices.

China would be glad to buy more savings bonds if the dufus quit spitting at them. Interest rates are climbing you know.

let's see now Medicare will go insolvent by some projections as early as 2026. That is with only geezers
who have paid into the system their whole working life being eligible . So what you propose is that everyone from birth should be on the plan ?

Really you sound like
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...how do you pay for it ?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/16/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-40-trillion-dollar-spending-plan-sotu-vpx.cnn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAtiWQR_FYY

Really you sound like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...how do you pay for it ?

Not thinking about how to pay for things is what has us in the mess we're in now. These glib, mindless ideas like letting Medicare pay for all healthcare imagines that Medicare has a money tree in the backyard. There is no one on earth more inefficient than our wonderful federal government.

Nancy will school her good, and consider that no other nations pays what we pay for heath care. WHY?

WHY?

Great question.

What are you carping when the answer is obvious, a single payer system, administered not for profit

What are you carping when the answer is obvious, a single payer system, administered not for profit.

Yes. We'll just double taxes and go in that direction.

We could always look at the other counties that have low taxes and a universal health care system to see how they do it.

We could always look at the other counties that have low taxes and a universal health care system to see how they do it.

Yes you could, but then you don't like taking advice from us "socialists"

We could always look at the other counties that have low taxes and a universal health care system to see how they do it.

Which one? I haven't seen one, but one way or the other, if the feds are going to start picking up over 3 trillion dollars in health care costs, they are going to have to come up with over 3 trillion in new revenues. Do you know of any way around that??? And even if, by some miracle, they are able to lower costs (something which they are historically TERRIBLE at doing) to maybe 2.5 trillion, they still have to raise that much more revenue. That's about 8,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in America. Good luck with doing that and still have low taxes.

It is a simple thing to Google a list and study the data of each country you find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care

It is a simple thing to Google a list and study the data of each country you find.

No, it's a simple thing for YOU to do. You are the one saying there are countries with universal health care and low taxes. It's up to you to back up your statement. Considering many of the countries you found, you'll have to forgive me for having no excitement whatsoever for doing what they are doing. Botswana??? Really?





1.1Algeria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Alger ia)
1.2Botswana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Botsw ana)
1.3Burkina Faso (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Burki na_Faso)
1.4Egypt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Egypt )
1.5Ghana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Ghana )
1.6Mauritius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Mauri tius)
1.7Morocco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Moroc co)
1.8Rwanda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Rwand a)
1.9Seychelles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Seych elles)
1.10South Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#South _Africa)
1.11Tunisia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Tunis ia)


2Asia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Asia)

2.1Bhutan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Bhuta n)
2.2Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Georg ia)
2.3Hong Kong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Hong_ Kong)
2.4India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#India )
2.5Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Israe l)
2.6Macau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Macau )
2.7Maldives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Maldi ves)
2.8People's Republic of China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Peopl e's_Republic_of_China)
2.9Singapore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Singa pore)
2.10Sri Lanka (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care#Sri_L anka)

With the list of countries you found, you'll have to forgive me for having no excitement whatsoever for doing what they are doing.

Why not?

So you're really going to tell me you'd rather get treated for cancer or heart disease in Botswana, Egypt, Rwanda, Georgia, or Morocco than in the United States? Good luck with that.

I would still like to know how we went from 27 bil in 1960 to over 3 tril now. That is greater than a 100 fold increase in health care spending. How did that happen? We didn't have universal health care in 1960, so that would not seem to be the answer to me. What was true in 1960 that is not true now?

So you're really going to tell me you'd rather get treated for cancer or heart disease in Botswana, Egypt, Rwanda, Georgia, or Morocco than in the United States? Good luck with that.

I have suggested no such thing, nor am I a citizen in another country. My point is other countries have made the health of it's citizens a priority, and put in place a structure whereby they can best accomplish that goal. Giving consideration to population size, and economic and social conditions they manage to deal with those issues. They are not perfect by any means, that's not what I'm saying, but they are trying with what they have.

ARE WE?


I would still like to know how we went from 27 bil in 1960 to over 3 tril now. That is greater than a 100 fold increase in health care spending. How did that happen? We didn't have universal health care in 1960, so that would not seem to be the answer to me. What was true in 1960 that is not true now?

The world and the country have changed a lot, and we have grown considerably since the 60's and more people are scuffling for a piece of that pie that has not grown as fast. We simply out grew the 60's.

My point is other countries have made the health of it's citizens a priority, and put in place a structure whereby they can best accomplish that goal.

I'm not sure how you could know that. I'd rather get health care in America than the vast majority of the world's countries since most of them are poor countries.


The world and the country have changed a lot, and we have grown considerably since the 60's and more people are scuffling for a piece of that pie that has not grown as fast. We simply out grew the 60's.

Actually, average income in America has either grown or remained stable for every income group over the past fifty years.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/4d/4dd6c939e5af3b0f7a05d42521f2f4c6.png

Tal, you need to give me a tutorial on how in the world you so successfully get images to display. Aggravating.

Your link was a great one JL, but it illustrates how Americans making $100,000 or less have not grown hardly at all since the 60's. Given the growth of the nation, that's not stable, but disturbing and may be part of the problem.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/4d/4dd6c939e5af3b0f7a05d42521f2f4c6.png
I used copy and paste.

Crud! How did you get that to display so well?

The people in the bottom 40% saw only slight growth. The 40 to 80% group saw substantial growth. The top 20% increased enormously which makes a lot of people nervous and is, I think, something we need to think about. But the point is that we are wealthier now than we have ever been, and yet health care has gone up incredibly. Maybe if our politicians could stop slinging mud for a few weeks, they might could try and figure this out.

Right click on image chose copy on drop box that appears, right click on where you want image and choose paste on drop box that appears. I use M/EDGE.

Would love specific link to article that graph came from. Context is important to correlating the data.

This site has become much easier . On The illustration above I right click the mouse and a drop down menu appears . At the bottom of it click on 'copy'. Then when you are ready to add the illustration ;again right click the mouse and hit 'paste' . It works for me anyway.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/4d/4dd6c939e5af3b0f7a05d42521f2f4c6.png

Well that is nice to know. When I first started on this site, I didn't think you could copy/paste. That is a lot easier.


Would love specific link to article that graph came from. Context is important to correlating the data.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/10/16/u-s-household-incomes-a-51-year-perspective

I already made my case about the effect of government intervention in the market . I deal with the regulatory end of the market all the time. I'm not saying regulation is not needed . But I can tell you definitively that as a result of increased government intervention ,supply (ie my competitors ) has been reduced .We in turn have had to make major investments on the compliance side and yes the consumer pays for it .

As for the comparison from the 1960s ;I think simple supply and demand issues is the answer. In most markets if prices rise the demand falls . But in this case demand increased even as prices rise . btw This fiction that the rest of the world pays less is just that ;a fiction. Spending 20% of GDP on health care will be the norm by 2050.

Demand has increased as medical solutions have made it to the market and 3rd party payer options were added . Each person's medical care is individual and personalized care . There is no 'change the tire 'solution .What works for you may or may not work for me . So the market is not even predictable . Now when 3rd party payers pay the costs ,then consumers don't worry about costs and that in turn increases demand.

But you don't see such price rises in cases where patients shell out the bulk of the cost ,and there is real competition like in say elective lasik procedures ,prices are stabilized and occasionally drop …. and most important ,innovation does not add to the price . The patient shops around and has their eye on the cost of the service . That supply side model can work throughout the system.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4I44BcK39Y

The rich get more richer, and the poor get poorer. And supply side economics doesn't trickle down per the link. I don't think it was supposed to actually, but a hype to sell it. But its the oldest most favored economic model and has been used for centuries.




Note in particular the growing spread between the top quintile (and especially the top 5%) and the other four quintiles. The growth spread began in the mid-1980s during the Reagan administration, the era of Supply Side Economics (aka "Reaganomics" and Trickle-Down Economics). As this chart illustrates, tax and other policy changes to benefit the wealthier households didn't have the heavily promoted trickle-down effect.

Then we must also account for the nature of man, and despite the marketing of the wealthy in very positive ways, there are plenty who game the system.

https://legaldictionary.net/price-gouging/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

https://ourfuture.org/20140622/what-is-currency-manipulation

And we cannot leave these guys out. Yes it's legal

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/difference-between-hedging-and-speculation/

I guess in a nutshell I don't believe in complete market solutions, or the myth of "free trade" hence my belief in government strong enough to protect its citizens. Translate that to smart and savvy. LEGALIZED stealing. In a consumer driven economy, the consumer is the sucker of choice for the numbers manipulators, or supply siders, who pass their screw ups onto those consumers as well.

You wonder why prices for health care go up, NEVER down no matter what? You should ask that about everything with a price.

the poor get poorer. And supply side economics doesn't trickle down per the link.

The poor did not get poorer. They stayed about where they were. The middle class improved considerably. Not as much as the top income earners to be sure, but still significant, so I'm not sure you can argue against trickle down theory off that graph. It has been an amazing period of prosperity.

The primary problem of poor people is the disintegration of the family. Single moms raising kids by themselves is a sure recipe for poverty. The data is very clear on that. Consider that the current out of wedlock birth rate for black Americans is over seventy percent. Imagine where that population group would be if it was ten percent. The difference would be profound.

I read the article on speculation and hedging. What is wrong with any of that? It's just sound business practices and trying to make profits off the market. Instead of griping about it, why not try it yourself? I don't because I don't like the risk, but there is nothing illegal or even unethical about it. What's your complaint?

You wonder why prices for health care go up, NEVER down no matter what? You should ask that about everything with a price. you mean like gasoline ? That is the subject of another supply side success. I'm sorry ;I have nothing else to say about comments couched in Marxist dialectic. The tract record of their economic system is indisputable failed misery .

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/168/16812/1681225.gif

you see ;they thought they worked for Govenment Motors where jobs are guaranteed .

Just bear this in mind, also known as the "big picture". Currently down to something below 4%. We should all be jumping for joy. Sadly, we are still too stupid to balance the budget, so it's anyone's guess where we go from here.

http://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_8974_us_unemployment_rate_n.jpg

So back to the rise of healthcare costs. Just food for thought.

If, in 1960, you had stage 4 cancer, leukemia, serious kidney disease, serious heart disease, or some types of diabetes, you basically were going to die. Treatment was difficult and since you weren't going to last very long, not expensive. These illnesses are treatable now, at least in many cases, and that's the good news. The bad news is that the treatments can be fantastically expensive. Knew a lady one time who had cancer for years. Her treatments eventually exceeded a million dollars. She died, but the treatments extended her life by probably ten or fifteen years. Good news/bad news. I wonder how much that contributes to things. I had a heart cath done a couple of years ago. The results were positive, thank God, but that was 5 thousand up in smoke. All these new treatments are great, but very expensive. Compare that to the development of penicillin. It was the first of the wonder drugs, and was considered to be a world changer. It was cheap. Get a penicillin shot for a few bucks, go home and get better. New treatments now can be off the charts expensive. Injections for macular degeneration, untreatable fifty years ago, are a sort of wonder drug, but cost about two thousand dollars or so a treatment. Sure beats going blind, but adds greatly to the cost of health care.

Got 210 billion or so every year for 10 years in cuts? We both know any window into economics is temporary and contingent on conditions, market corrections, recessionary trends, or the business cycle. Or some rich guys gone amok. Personally I thought tax cuts for the rich without conditions to earn them was a mistake, and making them permanent was even worse and I believe intentionally so. Hey I did say LEGALIZED Stealing didn't I? Remember how Clinton balanced the budget?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/how_clinton_balanced_the_budget_108853.html

Had to include this article as well,

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/us/clinton-budget-overview-president-offers-first-budget-balance-nearly-30-years.html

But I saved the best for last as it all ties together and makes sense during PEACE time.

Clinton Defense Budget Cuts Into Troops, Ships - latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-03-27/news/mn-15800_1_defense-budget)

I don't think we have that luxury, nor those with that mindset either.

So back to the rise of healthcare costs. Just food for thought.

If, in 1960, you had stage 4 cancer, leukemia, serious kidney disease, serious heart disease, or some types of diabetes, you basically were going to die. Treatment was difficult and since you weren't going to last very long, not expensive. These illnesses are treatable now, at least in many cases, and that's the good news. The bad news is that the treatments can be fantastically expensive. Knew a lady one time who had cancer for years. Her treatments eventually exceeded a million dollars. She died, but the treatments extended her life by probably ten or fifteen years. Good news/bad news. I wonder how much that contributes to things. I had a heart cath done a couple of years ago. The results were positive, thank God, but that was 5 thousand up in smoke. All these new treatments are great, but very expensive. Compare that to the development of penicillin. It was the first of the wonder drugs, and was considered to be a world changer. It was cheap. Get a penicillin shot for a few bucks, go home and get better. New treatments now can be off the charts expensive. Injections for macular degeneration, untreatable fifty years ago, are a sort of wonder drug, but cost about two thousand dollars or so a treatment. Sure beats going blind, but adds greatly to the cost of health care.

You don't have to go all the way back to the 60's to find people that couldn't pay for health care at all and died for lack of it. Or had junk insurance that didn't cover what ailed them. What about the people who got thrown out of insurance when they exceeded a given amount (Sorry you mentioned that), or people mostly kids that required life time care? Or those now that have to meet a high deductible EVERY year? Yeah I'll I agree life is expensive enough without getting sick.

You don't have to go all the way back to the 60's to find people that couldn't pay for health care at all and died for lack of it.

What on earth are you talking about? That was not what I was saying and if you think it was, you didn't read my post. Read it again, and you'll hopefully see my point was completely different than the way you responded.

As to all the high costs you mentioned, that's kind of what this thread is about. Low deductibles result in higher premiums. They do nothing to lower the cost of healthcare, they just mask it. The lady I mentioned with cancer never lost her insurance. It ended up being well over a million dollars in bills. Guess who paid for that? If you guessed all the other people on Bluecross insurance, you win the prize.

Forgive me for interjecting my own thoughts and being different than your own intentions, but for me rising costs is the American way and has always been that way for my whole life and it's also about the people those rising cost affects. You mention the bigger picture and that is the bigger picture. You cannot tell me that was how the system has been designed by the profits before people crowd.

Now you can market that and spin it anyway you want, turn it upside down and around and view any angle you want, but bottom line, it gets worse until the whole plan changes, and somebody admits the model don't work well for enough people.

You should know by now my responses seldom conform to your expectation, though I'm glad you can identify some inequity in this thing even if narrower than I might like. LOL, I was really glad that your own charts and graphs were bearing out what I've been saying all along and that's amazing.

I was really glad that your own charts and graphs were bearing out what I've been saying all along and that's amazing.

Well, I must have missed that place where you said we are in an era of amazing prosperity and practically everyone is benefiting, but I'm glad you acknowledge it now. (<:

In the meantime, we have found no way to slow the growth of med costs.

actually the bigger picture is the "miracle "treatments available . Why wouldn't they cost ? 15-20 years in development and when all is done when the FDA FINALLY gives the company the NDA approval ;should they not be able to turn a major profit for their efforts ? If their research fails they get nothing for their efforts . THAT is why America leads the world in the development of life saving drugs and treatments .

actually the bigger picture is the "miracle "treatments available . Why wouldn't they cost ? 15-20 years in development and when all is done when the FDA FINALLY gives the company the NDA approval ;should they not be able to turn a major profit for their efforts ? If their research fails they get nothing for their efforts . THAT is why America leads the world in the development of life saving drugs and treatments .

Yes, what you say is true, but it all still has to be paid for. And when you throw in Medicare, Medicaid, widespread insurance, and CHIPS, then these treatments become perceived as a "right" that must be extended to everyone. So then the question becomes, how do we pay for all this stuff? There is a limit. That's what our country does not want to believe. What you buy has to be paid for, one way or another.

The longer I have to watch this mess, the more I come to believe that any congressman/woman stupid enough to introduce a spending bill without a believable means of paying for it should sent off to prison. We will have to do something perhaps a little extreme to get this stopped.

Ill tell you what will happen if free market principles don't prevail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y

death panels . or Nanny Bloomy deciding that you don't need to drink that soda .

We have to come up with ways to lower costs. I don't know what that will entail, but it must be done somehow.

We have to come up with ways to lower costs. I don't know what that will entail, but it must be done somehow.
To summarize, what causes the high costs by Big Pharma, hospitals, doctors?

Seven years ago, one of the area hospitals built a new facility because the old one was crumbling and badly needing updating.The new hospital is very grand with vaulted ceilings, enormous lobbies, twelve meditation gardens (!!!), and endless hallways that have almost no offices or treatment rooms along them. It's a very handsome building but I see dollar signs all over the place. Patient rooms are single now with huge plasma TVs hung on the wall, nooks and shelves for vases of silk flowers and statuary (to give a homey feel?), and beautiful wooden storage chests and small tables. Now the hospital is fund raising to add nine more ER cubicles plus more up-to-date MRIs for cancer detection. Oh, and the hospital itself hasn't been completely paid for. I was there as a patient for three days in early May. The med my doctor prescribed for me is over $600 a month (but my pharmacy was somehow able to reduce that to a much smaller amount). Please tell me what's going on.

Please tell me what's going on.

I'm going to guess that the newspaper ran glowing stories about the wonderful new facility. There were, of course, no protests because no one seems to make the connection you have made, that the many non-essential aspects of the hospital's construction will drive up the price of medicine. We all just seem to accept it. Maybe if everyone had a 10,000 dollar deductible, we would begin to take more notice.

The answer doesn't lie in making patients pay more, if it did, medicine would be cheap, the answer lies in regulating what doctors and hospitals can charge for their services, then the incentive to build and gold plate would be removed

wage and price controls is what created the insurance mess we are in. Artificial controls on markets don't work . What do you do when physicians rebel and stop treating patients ? Already the average wait time for primary care is over 2weeks. Create a scarcity and see which way costs go.

I've already given some examples where insurance doesn't cover ;and there is competition in the market . Prices lower or are at least get stabilized .It makes a difference when patients shop around . The market reacts accordingly .

This is happening now more frequently where doctors and clinics are cutting out insurance for primary care .Instead of fees for service ,they instead make a private contract with the patient ,;usually annually for care . The patient only has to then get coverage for catastrophic care . It makes sense . We do not have insurance coverage for routine auto maintenance . Most patients can afford the costs of primary care under these terms .

Tort reform .Doctors pay a fortune for malpractice insurance . They also have to have an administrative staff to deal with this and other paperwork now mandated by Obamcare . All these costs are passed on to the patient. But the biggest impact of practicing in our sue happy society is that unnecessary tests are performed for CYA .

The answer doesn't lie in making patients pay more,

Got bad news for you. Patients pay 100% of the costs of medicine either through direct payments, insurance premiums, or taxes. There is no money tree.

As to regulating charges, that is already done. Both Medicare and insurance companies have established systems which regulate what docs and hospitals are permitted to charge. The fact that those who benefit from Medicare and many insurance programs don't even pay premiums, or at least all of the premiums, tends to mask the true cost of health care. So once, for instance, I meet my 200 dollar deductible for my Medicare supplement, I tend to not care what a doctor charges for a particular service. That's a big problem. Low deductibles do nothing to lower health care costs overall, but place a wall between the patient and what is being charged. Doing away with low deductibles would put us in a position where cost would become important each one of us as a consumer.

I just think that Wondergirl's post was so enlightening. No one really cares about controlling costs.

I just think that Wondergirl's post was so enlightening. No one really cares about controlling costs. The same thing happens in higher education also .The costs of glitzy campuses gets passed on .

Sure rising cost apply to EVERYTHING because the whole GOAL is to make profit FOR investors FROM the consumer. That was the goal when the stock market was invented, and that has NEVER changed. More profits require MO"MONEY. The whole term whatever the market will bear only means whatever they can get (from a consumer). It's not like nobody cares about controlling costs, but the investors make the rules, and governments job is merely to regulate (Keep it HONEST). Part of the problem is our government officials know very little about how economics work, and are really behind the curb and at the mercy of those that work for and lobby the investor class for sweet deals to make MO'MONEY for themselves. LOL, Tom, even in a stable market prices and costs will rise.

That's my problem with the supply siders as they make rules for the big bucks people, and don't keep it honest or fair for the consumers, and with that kind of structure prices RISE, as do profits, from consumers. Until you balance that equation to include consumers you will never achieve an equity that benefits those consumers. This is particularly troubling with essentials like education, health, and welfare, and environmental services.

Or you could take the stigma from socialism and apply it as a good thing ..IE...Social Security. If you exam the socialism of our "enemies" it looks exactly like capitalism, but without social freedom.

Too bad health insurance companies never run discounts, sales, or buy one get one free sales. Bottom line, the only way of controlling prices, you must control PROFITS, and investors and supply siders would never stand for that.

social security is an insurance policy ….not socialism. But since it is government managed ;it is mis-managed

many non-essential aspects of the hospital's construction will drive up the price of medicine
Back to my hospital description ...those twelve meditation gardens are now overgrown and rarely used (I was told by medical staff) except as a shortcut to another hospital wing. When I was a patient, lying in bed and staring idly at the ceiling, I was URGED by medical staff to turn on my huge tv and get involved in a soap opera or game show. I said I hate watching TV and would prefer talking with a roommate. That was met with great disappointment. "Oh, no. We want you to get well. A sick roommate won't help." Sorry, but the best part of my times in hospitals has been interacting with a roommate. Meanwhile, there was constant buzzing, dinging, ringing, banging, chirping, door slamming, and loud talking (mostly from other patients' TVs). And I was supposed to get well????

I would have to look up my bill from those three days. I could have bought a fancy new car.

ADDED: $80,000-90,000 for only the hospital costs. I was anemic, received one transfusion in ER (where I hung out for ten hours "waiting for a room to be cleaned"), then two more transfusions in my hospital room.

The same thing happens in higher education also .The costs of glitzy campuses gets passed on .

Yes indeed. Very true.


Or you could take the stigma from socialism and apply it as a good thing ..IE...Social Security. If you exam the socialism of our "enemies" it looks exactly like capitalism, but without social freedom.

1. Social security is not socialism. Not even close.
2. The socialism of anyone cannot look like capitalism. They are not similar.
3. The profits of the health care industry does not even come close to explaining the incredible growth of health care costs.

Capitalism and communism and any other name you can come up with) share the same structure! A head that delegates the rest of the society. Every society on Earth shares the same social structure with only minute differences, and different names and titles, and level of sophistication. So logically every nation is suffering from rising costs. Now military spending is a huge difference. One could say nations have different PRIORITIES that their budgets reflect.



3. The profits of the health care industry does not even come close to explaining the incredible growth of health care costs.

Wrong, Costs have gone up for everybody, in all things. It's not just health care, as Tom explained very well.

Capitalism and communism and any other name you can come up with) share the same structure! A head that delegates the rest of the society. Every society on Earth shares the same social structure with only minute differences, and different names and titles, and level of sophistication.

Go spend a year in communist China and then come back and tell us about those "minute differences". If you really believe that capitalism and communism share the same structure, then you plainly don't understand either one of them.

I say that the profits of the health care industry do not explain the rise of health care costs, and you counter by saying that's wrong because costs have gone up for everybody?? That is a strange, disconnected answer.

Capitalism is predicated on exploiting the masses under the guise of freedom, communism is predicated on enslaving the masses under the guise of equality. In communism health costs are strictly controlled and don't suffer from the same exploitation obvious in the capitalist system, in capitalism health costs are allowed to escalate because the falacy of free market is in operation.

What you fail to see is that the health system can be regulated to provide fair outcomes for all, all you have to do is remove stupidity

Capitalism is predicated on exploiting the masses under the guise of freedom, communism is predicated on enslaving the masses under the guise of equality. In communism health costs are strictly controlled and don't suffer from the same exploitation obvious in the capitalist system, in capitalism health costs are allowed to escalate because the falacy of free market is in operation.

What you fail to see is that the health system can be regulated to provide fair outcomes for all, all you have to do is remove stupidity

… or GREED.

What you fail to see is that the health system can be regulated to provide fair outcomes for all, all you have to do is remove stupidity.

I'm open to ideas. Explain how that would work. You might also explain how to stop the exploding costs of health care.

As to capitalism, it is the foundation behind the economic miracle which is the United States of America. Of course if we had tried good ole socialism, we could be on the level of Venezuela, Italy, Greece, or France.

I'm open to ideas. Explain how that would work. You might also explain how to stop the exploding costs of health care.

As to capitalism, it is the foundation behind the economic miracle which is the United States of America. Of course if we had tried good ole socialism, we could be on the level of Venezuela, Italy, Greece, or France.


You keep listening to propaganda but you can't help it you are brainwashed from birth. All systems suffer from exploitation, you are just blind to what is happening in your own backyard. Not all systems of socialism are bad but when greed takes over they degenerate. Venezuela failed because of nationalisation, Greece because of failure to raise revenue, Italy is still there but politically unstable, and the French are just stupid, but what has capitalism done for Russia? Communism has done something worthwhile for China recently after the worst excesses were thrown off. You think the US is an economic miracle, but you are living in the past century, there have been terrible excesses in the system, the GFC is just one example. The best system is a hybrid, proper regulation achieves wonders I live in a place where there have been 28 years of growth the budget has been balance more than once and soon will be again and yet we have fair taxation, health care and a dynamic economy

1. Who propagandized me, especially from birth? My parents? Really??
2. Russia is not a capitalistic economy.
3. The economic growth in China is due to the government allowing the growth of private business.
4. "The budget has been balanced more than once and soon will be again." I hope you realize what a funny statement that is. It's the general equivalent of me telling my wife, "We've been spending more than we've been making for years, but I have good news. We are going to stop doing that in just a few more years!"
5. Most Americans admire what is being done in Australia. I am one of them, but bear in mind that you are about half the population of our largest state.
6. "all you have to do is remove stupidity." You still have not explained what you mean by that. I'm open to your ideas, but you need to explain.

1. Who propagandized me, especially from birth? My parents? Really??

Yes followed by your education system


2. Russia is not a capitalistic economy.

Well it isn't a socialist economy


3. The economic growth in China is due to the government allowing the growth of private business.
China is closely controlled


4. "The budget has been balanced more than once and soon will be again." I hope you realize what a funny statement that is.

It is not funny it is policy and is being realised


5. Most Americans admire what is being done in Australia. I am one of them, but bear in mind that you are about half the population of our largest state.

Yes but I don't remember a state with a population of 50 million, but we manage an area the size of your nation, population isn't everything


6. "all you have to do is remove stupidity." You still have not explained what you mean by that. I'm open to your ideas, but you need to explain.

Stupidity is like madness, you keep doing the same thing and expecting change. You think one size or system fits all but your system has proven to let you down on more than one occasion and it is really the system of governance that has let you down

Yes followed by your education system.

Completely, totally, 100% false accusation. You've lost all credibility with that statement. I say that since you have no earthly idea what my parents or my teachers taught me. None at all.


Stupidity is like madness, you keep doing the same thing and expecting change. You think one size or system fits all but your system has proven to let you down on more than one occasion and it is really the system of governance that has let you down.

I'm open to your ideas, but not to yet another generic, meaningless statement. Do you have anything specific? And when you say, "You think one size or system fits all," isn't that actually what YOU are saying? I'm actually all for trying a variety of things from one state to another and comparing results.

Give us a break Clete, even though I think it's the dufus and his antics making us look bad, in all honesty we had a lot of work to do before he showed up, and all he has done in two years is clown and distract us from that work, while him and his sycophants steal the money, and get a free stay out of jail card, that's permanent, and good for more rape, pillage and plunder.

Give us a break Clete, even though I think it's the dufus and his antics making us look bad, in all honesty we had a lot of work to do before he showed up, and all he has done in two years is clown and distract us from that work, while him and his sycophants steal the money, and get a free stay out of jail card, that's permanent, and good for more rape, pillage and plunder.

Ohh. You started so well, and then you veered off the highway of reason. Still, you are correct that we have a lot to do, and if you can find a single republican or democrat that seems to be serious about the problem and has some real answers, then I'd like to know about them. We have everything from Trump to Bernie Sanders. Not good.

Give us a break Clete, even though I think it's the dufus and his antics making us look bad, in all honesty we had a lot of work to do before he showed up, and all he has done in two years is clown and distract us from that work, while him and his sycophants steal the money, and get a free stay out of jail card, that's permanent, and good for more rape, pillage and plunder.

Tal I'll give you a break when you give the rest of us a break, Trump is the manifestation of your society, reality mirroring art, but what did you have before him? Paradise? Only in your mind, only in your dreams

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/168/16818/1681803.gif
You guys went from this to this

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/167/16799/1679990.jpg

Tal I'll give you a break when you give the rest of us a break, Trump is the manifestation of your society, reality mirroring art, but what did you have before him? Paradise? Only in your mind, only in your dreams.

It really worries me when I start to agree, even partially, with you guys. (<:

However, we are getting off topic. How to lower health care costs. I'd still love to know what is responsible for the incredible rise in costs over the past sixty years.

Eight minute video which seemed to have a lot of good info. Not a conservative man by any means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

It really worries me when I start to agree, even partially, with you guys. (<:

However, we are getting off topic. How to lower health care costs. I'd still love to know what is responsible for the incredible rise in costs over the past sixty years.


Still in denial. Look, we solved the problem this way, amid howls of anguish and predictions of the end of life as we know it I might add. The government took over the provision of health care by regulating the price of medical services and implementing a single payer system which had a levy attached to it of 1.5% that all tax payers were required to meet. Doctors could remain outside the system and charge more and the patient would receive a rebate or they could just bill the government for the regulated fee. It has required some tweeking over time. At the same time the price of drugs were regulated amid screams from pharma. Services in public hospitals are free. There is a private system outside of this, expensive but insurable and the health funds are regulated. Today about 80% of doctors work within the system and prices have been held down because the government doesn't allow the prices to escalate

Not sure how you get the "still in denial" remark, but at any rate I do hear what you are saying. It just makes me suspicious. "Why, we just hold down the price of health care." Ok, but if it's all just that simple, then why not do the same thing with food? Why not just say that milk producers can only sell milk for 2 dollars a gallon? That would be nice except that the supply of milk would be cut tremendously since you cannot sell milk at that price and stay in business. So I wonder if the same dynamic works with health care. It will be interesting to see how it all works out over the next decade.

The video I linked above said a person can get an MRI in Japan for 150 dollars, but in the U.S. it is a couple of thousand or whatever it was. That just strikes me as strange. How do you go from 1500 in the U.S. to 150 bucks in Japan? It just makes me wonder how they are doing that. Is the quality the same? Is the government subsidizing? What makes the difference of 90% in price?

What is the 1.5% levy? 1.5% of what?

Not sure how you get the "still in denial" remark, but at any rate I do hear what you are saying. It just makes me suspicious. "Why, we just hold down the price of health care." Ok, but if it's all just that simple, then why not do the same thing with food? Why not just say that milk producers can only sell milk for 2 dollars a gallon? That would be nice except that the supply of milk would be cut tremendously since you cannot sell milk at that price and stay in business. So I wonder if the same dynamic works with health care. It will be interesting to see how it all works out over the next decade.

The video I linked above said a person can get an MRI in Japan for 150 dollars, but in the U.S. it is a couple of thousand or whatever it was. That just strikes me as strange. How do you go from 1500 in the U.S. to 150 bucks in Japan? It just makes me wonder how they are doing that. Is the quality the same? Is the government subsidizing? What makes the difference of 90% in price?

What is the 1.5% levy? 1.5% of what?

Taxable income, what else, but the system has worked for about 40 years, as to milk is sells here at $2 a litre because the supermarkets use it as a promotion and yes the dairy industry has taken a pounding but they still exist.

MRI are expensive here when out of the system $250 - $400 dollars depending on the machine but what this has done is stopped GP ordering them up on a whim. Government regulation has done that too, no blanket tests in pathology everything has to be specified. You see, doctors don't know what they are looking for and take the high road of investigating the worst case first instead of taking the simpler view and this escalates costs. Last week I was in the public hospital system, ER, and they did blood tests and an MRI, the outcome they found I had a brain but no condition and I was sent home. What had caused the problem, who knows

Milk here is about 75 cents or so a liter, so at least we've got you there.

It helps me sometimes to put these things in a different venue. Suppose the government decides that pickup trucks are too expensive. They can easily run above 50 thousand. So the feds say that no one can sell a truck for more than 20 thou. Everyone gets excited thinking they will get the big, expensive trucks for 20, but we know it won't work that way. The truck companies would go out of business in a hurry, so what you will get is a MUCH cheaper version of the big trucks with a 4 cylinder engine and not much else. As the old saying goes, there is no free lunch, so I don't see that putting price controls on all this will get us the same level of care we have now at half the price.

Another example would be computers. Computers now are wildly more capable than they were twenty years ago, and yet adjusted for inflation are actually cheaper. No government program did that, the free market did. Why isn't that working with health care?

Milk here is about 75 cents or so a liter, so at least we've got you there.

It helps me sometimes to put these things in a different venue. Suppose the government decides that pickup trucks are too expensive. They can easily run above 50 thousand. So the feds say that no one can sell a truck for more than 20 thou. Everyone gets excited thinking they will get the big, expensive trucks for 20, but we know it won't work that way. The truck companies would go out of business in a hurry, so what you will get is a MUCH cheaper version of the big trucks with a 4 cylinder engine and not much else. As the old saying goes, there is no free lunch, so I don't see that putting price controls on all this will get us the same level of care we have now at half the price.

Another example would be computers. Computers now are wildly more capable than they were twenty years ago, and yet adjusted for inflation are actually cheaper. No government program did that, the free market did. Why isn't that working with health care?

The free market doesn't work with everything because you don't have perfect conditions of supply and demand. Manufacturing in low cost countries have reduced the price of many items, however you may not want some of these products. You can get a Chinese SUV for $25,000 here but would you want one, we have seen many brands of cheap vehicles come and go, logic suggests they should take the market but they quickly disappear. Protection causes some products to be more expensive than they should. Personally I wouldn't want a yank tank in my driveway, wouldn't fit, but they are a nuiance when trying to park, can't see around them, and I don't get it really, but then I don't have to navigate snow and ice

Marketers hocking their wares don't care about the consumer or his life. Just can the consumer afford to pay, and will he sign on the dotted line. There are industries that collect debt on default, and retrieve the product. Heck there are industries for everything. Even silly season is a holiday for political TV commercials. Big pharma has all kinds of commercials for it's new drugs. The costs borne by consumers. That's the business model to create revenue streams and increase profits. If laying off half the workers creates profits, so what? If closing down a town increases profits, then kiss the town good bye. CEO's embezzles the profits, hire a company to clean up your image and rebrand and spin your way back to profits. Doesn't matter what you call your government, or you national identity, it's still about profits.

From early man to man today, it's about making profit. Such is the nature of man when wealth is power. The wealthy set the price and not the free market because there is no such thing. Don't believe the hype.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F168%2F16810%2F1681074.gif&t=1543923864&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c51-26002801f100&sig=BLDol9zSznTG7GspXOqOoQ--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/bizarro/s-2151210?ezine=524&r=asIjM2FnYXzruTqGp1muiHohbundimGp3D8bBb71EcNDOjUx MDM2OTA1Oko6MTgwNTA0NzpMOjUyNDpSOjM4NzQ2MDpTOjIxNT EyMTA6Vjo0Mw)

Marketers hocking their wares don't care about the consumer or his life. Just can the consumer afford to pay, and will he sign on the dotted line.

I think that is largely true, but it is also true of computers and cars. Both have improved in quality ENORMOUSLY. The price of computers has gone down by a great amount. The average price of cars, adjusted for inflation, has gone up from about 22,000 in 67 to about 25,000 now, but you get a car that is vastly better in quality. We drive a car 200,000 miles now and don't think that much of it. That was unheard of in 67.

So why aren't those same dynamics working to bring down the cost of healthcare?

https://wgntv.com/2016/04/25/the-average-car-now-costs-25449-how-much-was-a-car-the-year-you-were-born/

They might in the future. We might figure it out or find a better way of doing things. Never know with humans.

Cars have been made better you could try turning out better doctors. They are still trained the same way they have been for decades.

You can't expect something to change if you do it the same way

Cars have been made better you could try turning out better doctors. They are still trained the same way they have been for decades.

You can't expect something to change if you do it the same way

They have been trained with the most modern techniques, and equipment that money can buy though.

They have been trained with the most modern techniques, and equipment that money can buy though.

Thus the higher cost, problem solved

I don't think doctor training is responsible for this incredible rise in health care costs. Might need to be improved, and no doubt could be better, but didn't cause these spiraling costs.

I think rising costa are inevitable. The real question is why doesn't your paycheck rise with them?

They have been trained with the most modern techniques, and equipment that money can buy though.
When I was a youngster, every doctor I knew was a family doctor, a GP. Specialists were few and far between, practicing in the big cities in big-name hospitals. Now, every doctor I meet is a specialist with years of expensive training and residencies behind him.

Thus, why not rising costs????

GPs cant make a living as private practitioners . Costs of running a practice are too high . That is why they partner in these walk in clinics . They are basically there for check ups ,subscribing drugs ,and referrals .

The cost of digitizing patient records is through the roof as well. Pays good though.

Haven't you done that yet

Med care costs have risen much faster than inflation for decades. The question for this thread is "Why?".

1. You have identified the increased use of specialists. Sounds plausible to me.
2. The widespread use of med insurance for things such as doctor's visits and birth control pills has caused an explosion in paperwork and tends to hide costs from the consumer. This is the same consumer that still has to pay those costs.
3. The development of drugs and treatments for illnesses that once were just in the "send them home to die" category means that people with those illnesses now survive. That's the good news. The bad news is the drugs and treatments are unbelievably expensive.
4. The widespread practice of suing doctors and hospitals for anything and everything, with settlements amounting to millions and millions of dollars, has resulted in a defensive practice of medicine resulting in increased costs.

Comments?

https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fmikepatton%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F06 %2FCPI-Health-Care-Inflation-2005-2015.jpg

Seems the solution is apparent

Restrict the use of specialists to serious cases
Restrict what medical insurance can cover
Regulate the price of drugs
Set limits in liability claims

1. You have identified the increased use of specialists. Sounds plausible to me.

I think we will see this as a norm going forward, given the rise of networks for GP's where they can share overhead costs with other GP's especially in the heavily populated cities of the nation.


2. The widespread use of med insurance for things such as doctor's visits and birth control pills has caused an explosion in paperwork and tends to hide costs from the consumer. This is the same consumer that still has to pay those costs.

GP's do very well just with office visits and routine exams and health monitoring for older patients like me with more than a few health issues. Yes insurance covers more things than they did in the past, but let's face it, they have to with the discovery of more and better ways to deal with those illnesses and issues they can no longer IGNORE for lack of knowledge, and the removal of caps on treatments of those very expensive procedures. Logic suggest the more people the higher the costs as we add the poorest among us, and we had to see the growing population of aged citizens seeing doctors, coming decades ago.


3. The development of drugs and treatments for illnesses that once were just in the "send them home to die" category means that people with those illnesses now survive. That's the good news. The bad news is the drugs and treatments are unbelievably expensive.

As is the research and development of those drugs and treatments so naturally there is the inevitable return on that investment, which includes the patents that give exclusive pricing to those companies that lasts for years.


4. The widespread practice of suing doctors and hospitals for anything and everything, with settlements amounting to millions and millions of dollars, has resulted in a defensive practice of medicine resulting in increased costs.

Add the costs of debt collection to those costs for those they can take legal actions against when they cannot pay for whatever reason. Most large businesses take this course of legal action, and pursue them aggressively to mitigate losses. I guess you never got sick, couldn't work, and found your wages or bank accounts garnished when you did get back to work. You could lose everything or filed for bankruptcy.

I don't think settling lawsuits instead of fighting them is a cost that should be passed onto consumers nor any other legal actions for wrongdoing, or bad decisions, nor used as an excuse since most of us have no clue about what's defensive medicine or what's a necessary and reasonable since medicine as advanced as we are s not a sure thing for good outcomes.

The bottom line is the fact that cost are rising much faster than wages and there are many why's as to the reasons for that. Just remember that it is another human that decides to jack up the price to cover those costs and make a few bucks in the process. That's the supply side capitalist way.

I guess we all want a way to pay that doesn't break the bank, but as you have found out you pay, or steal, or just don't buy what they are selling. See, you have a choice in the matter. Living longer isn't a right is it?

Restrict the use of specialists to serious cases

Good luck with that law, since a physician here will never go along with it. Especially if the network they are in requires such a referral.


Restrict what medical insurance can cover

That's been tried, but what would you suggest not covering?


Regulate the price of drugs

You got my vote for that one.


Set limits in liability claims

Already done!

You see all I get is road blocks, do some thinking, you aren't trying hard enough

You see all I get is road blocks, do some thinking, you aren't trying hard enough


Restrict what medical insurance can cover

That's been tried, but what would you suggest not covering?


Elaborate please. What restrictions do you Aussies have?

Medical insurance is not allowed to cover GP visits, MRI without specialist referall, lower cost pharma, gap payments and is price regulated so they just can't jack up the premiums,

Medical insurance is not allowed to cover GP visits, MRI without specialist referall, lower cost pharma, gap payments and is price regulated so they just can't jack up the premiums,

Are you talking about in the US or Australia?

Are you talking about in the US or Australia?

I was responding to Tal, he asked what we do in Australia. I was suggesting that such reforms may slow down the rise in your health costs by making doctors more responsible for the costs they inflict on the public. We have a single payer system run by the government so health insurance is restricted to covering higher end medical costs and providing a way for quicker service for elective procedures. I don't doubt you could find more instances but my theory is that costs have risen to avoid liability and that the public is subsidising the insurance industry

Medical insurance is not allowed to cover GP visits, MRI without specialist referall, lower cost pharma

Couldn't you basically accomplish the same thing by having a high deductible? In either case, the idea would be to make the consumer pay for the common medical expenses and reserve insurance for more serious and pricey issues, and the result would be to allow the consumer to see the prices being charged by health providers.

BTW, what do you do in Aussie with poor people who cannot pay even for an office visit to a GP? Also, how do you prevent people from doing an "end run" about having to pay for a GP visit by simply going to a specialist? I have a sore throat, so I go to an ENT.

Couldn't you basically accomplish the same thing by having a high deductible? In either case, the idea would be to make the consumer pay for the common medical expenses and reserve insurance for more serious and pricey issues, and the result would be to allow the consumer to see the prices being charged by health providers.

BTW, what do you do in Aussie with poor people who cannot pay even for an office visit to a GP? Also, how do you prevent people from doing an "end run" about having to pay for a GP visit by simply going to a specialist? I have a sore throat, so I go to an ENT.

No one in this nation cannot afford to visit a GP, 80% of all services are bulkbilled by the medical provider, this includes GP, ER, pathology, radiology, even some specialists, what you have just said is a nonsense, propaganda. An attempt by conservative nitwits like yourself to introduce this concept of co-payment, it was politically untenable and abandoned

Suppose the government decides that pickup trucks are too expensive. They can easily run above 50 thousand. So the feds say that no one can sell a truck for more than 20 thou.

Hello j:

If you don't get your $50K truck at a reduced rate, you still LIVE.. If you can't afford an MRI, you DIE..

To ME, you don't have a RIGHT to the truck, but you DO have a RIGHT to live.

excon

what you have just said is a nonsense, propaganda. An attempt by conservative nitwits like yourself to introduce this concept of co-payment, it was politically untenable and abandoned

Honestly, you need to calm down. There are no nitwits on this board, but there is one person who just cannot maintain a civil attitude.

Your statement was that insurance could not pay for a GP visit, so it would seem the individual would pay for it. Now you add some information that, it would seem, the government pays for 80% of the service, which is about the same as an insurance company paying for it. That really changes things and makes it plain that the consumer does not pay for the service directly. They do, of course, pay for the service through taxes, which is to say they pay for it indirectly. So whether it is through a copay or through taxes, the consumer still pays. The primary difference is that in your system there are price controls on what a doctor or a drug company can charge for services or products.

Government debt in Australia is well over 800 billion and climbing steadily, so you are borrowing money to pay for your med care. I would be much more impressed if you were actually paying your bills. And yes, in the U.S. we are in much worse shape, which makes it all the more amazing that people are actually proposing increased government spending for health care.


If you don't get your $50 K truck at a reduced rate, you still LIVE.. If you can't afford an MRI, you DIE..

To ME, you don't have a RIGHT to the truck, but you DO have a RIGHT to live.

Hello Ex,

You completely missed my point. Read the post again. I was not really talking about the price of trucks. That was in illustration.

I am glad to see you have boarded the "right to life" express. That's good to know and is what many of us have been saying for decades.

I think you make a big mistake just focusing on health care costs, as emotional and personal as they are for EVERYBODY, since it's but a symptom of a much larger economical model FLAW. One thing we learned for the Obama care debate was no matter what we do we can only slow the growth rate of those costs, and every nation with universal care is finding that fact out.



I am glad to see you have boarded the "right to life" express. That's good to know and is what many of us have been saying for decades.


Unfortunately while you advocate for life, you take no responsibility for it after it's here. That's sad that you think you can have it both ways.

Unfortunately while you advocate for life, you take no responsibility for it after it's here. That's sad that you think you can have it both ways.

Actually, I'm about the only one who does take PERSONAL responsibility for people and who is, so far as I can tell, actually DOING something to help people. You advocating charity with someone else's money is not the same thing. Argue if you want to that I should be doing more, and I might agree with you, but don't think that your ideas of enforced government charity counts. It doesn't.

It's not charity, the general welfare of the people is the governments responsibility among others. You just don't understand the RESPONSIBILITY part.

It's not charity, the general welfare of the people is the governments responsibility among others. You just don't understand the RESPONSIBILITY part.

I understand very well. You think it is your responsibility to force others to take care of the poor. I think it is my responsibility and your responsibility to do so ourselves. No American has a right to another American's money. If you believe they do, then you should also give them a right to cars, houses, boats, and furniture.

That's not even a valid argument since the law and Constitution is very clear. What part of the law is it you don't understand here? You may not like it much, but crying won't change either and clearly your side doesn't have the votes. What are you going to do secede from the union and declare yourself a country?

Let me know how that works out. Hey maybe Puerto Rico can replace you and we won't need a new flag.

Constitution is very clear.

Now you are making things up. The preamble of the Constitution reads that the feds are to "provide for the general welfare." That means that which is good for the welfare of everyone, but there is no mention of individuals, nor is there even a hint that one American might have a right to the income of another American. In fact, for most of our history it was not done. The welfare mentality is rather recent.

Crying?? Good grief. Go back and read some of your posts about Trump and then come back and tell me about crying and complaining.

My crying and comparing is based on EVIDENCE about the dufus. Must be nice to be able ignore EVIDENCE, by holding your nose.

My crying and comparing is based on EVIDENCE about the dufus. Must be nice to be able ignore EVIDENCE, by holding your nose.

When you try to suggest that there is no evidence against HC, you lose all credibility. Benghazi. Private email server. Biggest supporter of her husband in his lying about M. Lewinsky. Lied about confidential emails. And that doesn't even count going back to Whitewater and the many accusations that swirled around that.

Now you will try to plead that she was not convicted of a crime. Yes, and in that regard she is EXACTLY like President Trump. So if you are going to whine about him, then you need to whine about her.

No evidence? Wow. That is an incredible statement. You must be holding your nose as well as your ears and covering your eyes.

So if you are going to whine about him, then you need to whine about her.

No I don't. That's the loony rights job. You guys are great at it and have been for decades. My job is to vilify the dufus you elected. You do your job, I do mine and we see whose head explodes.

It's your job if you want to be consistent in your moral values. But at least you have reached the point of being able to admit that there is much to cry about with HC. So when you speak of me holding my nose, just hold yours at the same time.

From my point of view, they are both corrupt on some level. So was Obama, and he has doubled down on it by his repeated claim that there was no scandal in his administration, which is a claim that should, as you put, make our heads explode.

You do what you want with your nose but compared to the lying cheating dufus HC and Obama are saints.

Honestly, you need to calm down. There are no nitwits on this board, but there is one person who just cannot maintain a civil attitude.

Your statement was that insurance could not pay for a GP visit, so it would seem the individual would pay for it. Now you add some information that, it would seem, the government pays for 80% of the service, which is about the same as an insurance company paying for it. That really changes things and makes it plain that the consumer does not pay for the service directly. They do, of course, pay for the service through taxes, which is to say they pay for it indirectly. So whether it is through a copay or through taxes, the consumer still pays. The primary difference is that in your system there are price controls on what a doctor or a drug company can charge for services or products.

Your mindset means you don't understand the English language, I didn't say the government pays 80% of the fee, The government pays for 80% of all services through a "single payer" bulk billing system. The patient does not part with cash. The average person is not insured. What the patient pays, if they are a taxpayer, is a levy on their income so you could say the visit is prepaid. They can even avoid the levy by having private insurance but the poorer people live from week to week and cannot afford it


Government debt in Australia is well over 800 billion and climbing steadily, so you are borrowing money to pay for your med care. I would be much more impressed if you were actually paying your bills. And yes, in the U.S. we are in much worse shape, which makes it all the more amazing that people are actually proposing increased government spending for health care.

Government debt here doesn't represent the percentage of GDP that it does there and the budget will return to surplus next year so long as the wind doesn't blow to the left so we are not borrowing money to pay for health care. We have the GFC and stupid leftist thinking, to thank for the debt, not health care costs. I understand why your debt is an impediment to changing the way you do things but studies have shown the costs on the public purse would be less if you got rid of the expensive middle man

Just curious Clete, but who gets the bill for that leftover 20%?

I didn't say the government pays 80% of the fee, The government pays for 80% of all services through a "single payer" bulk billing system.

The government doesn't pay, but then the government pays. Oh. That makes sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

You have been borrowing money, and some of that went to health care. It's simple math.

Only one person ever pays, and that's the consumer. It's because only the consumers have money. Governments have no money. So the bill gets paid either in taxes (your case) or insurance (our case). There is no such thing as doing away with the middle man so long as the consumer does not pay the bills directly.

Just curious Clete, but who gets the bill for that leftover 20%?

Those who have the money and don't use the system will pay fees, be entitled to rebates and use their insurance to offset major costs. You don't need to use the health care insurers unless you want private rooms and quicker service for elective surgery. The way it works is private hospitals are not covered by the government system and many specialists like to use them because they can charge more, the patient must pay for the gap. If you are admitted to hospital through ER the government picks up the bill and they will deal with whatever they find that is life threatening.





Example;, my son-in-law was admitted because of an industrial accident, they couldn't stabilise his blood pressure and found a rare cancer, this was removed at a major city hospital, all free

Example; I consulted a specialist and eventually had a hip replacement using my health insurance to reduce waiting time. I made a gap payment to the surgeon but my hospital costs were completely covered

Well, I have no idea how the 20% gets paid, but I know who pays the 80%, and that would be the taxpayer, who of course pays for the whole thing regardless. We are going to pay the bills for this. It can be through insurance or taxes to the feds, but WE are going to pay for it. The big question is how to control prices. I do know that a person can buy prescription drugs much cheaper through foreign outlets than he/she can here, and that same person can get medical treatments much cheaper in other countries than here. Maybe we should find out why that is.

A high deductible would solve some problems. It would force us to pay attention to prices instead of just ignoring them like the great majority of people do now.

Everything seems to be cheaper in other countries, and it's no wonder Big Biz makes stuff overseas because of cheap labor. You actually think the Mo'Money crowd will take a cut in pay because their prices are to high? Ever wonder if the sweat shop worker that make Nike's can afford to buy what they make?

If you ever wonder why prices are so high, and rising, ask the guy who sets the prices.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/health-insurance-premium-increase-2615099

Health insurance premiums go up because medical costs increase. Doctors need to be paid more, drugs are more expensive, testing technology gets more sophisticated and expensive, and so forth.

That doesn't even come close to explaining going from 27 bil to over 3 tril in only fifty years.

Greatest incentive to control costs is competition. There is but very little competition in health care costs.

The bigger insurance companies have a distinct advantage in all the markets which they have effectively carved up and dominated.

The bigger insurance companies have a distinct advantage in all the markets which they have effectively carved up and dominated.

I think you have a good point there. The solution would be to allow people some means of purchasing policies across state lines.

That would be up to the states themselves, since they have that individual power through the state insurance regulators.

https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-Americans-buy-health-insurance-across-state-lines-today-if-true

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/255490-health-insurance-across-state-lines



The main difference between auto insurance and health insurance is that individuals own auto insurance, but employers own health insurance. Obviously, states would not attract residents if they impeded a national market for auto insurance. Similarly, if we owned our own health insurance, states would quickly harmonize their laws to facilitate a national market.Which brings us to a legitimate recommendation for Congress: Stop the tax code’s discrimination against individually owned health insurance.

85% of Americans get health insurance through an employer.

The big question is how to control prices. I do know that a person can buy prescription drugs much cheaper through foreign outlets than he/she can here, and that same person can get medical treatments much cheaper in other countries than here. Maybe we should find out why that is.

.

Well I have been trying to tell you but you don't like the answer. The problem is your screwed up political system which allows too many middle men to stick their snout in the trough. Countries that have single payer government run systems have lower costs. Are there inefficiencies, of course there are, are there doctors who gouge the system, of course there are, but the focus isn't on how much the patient/taxpayer pays the insurance companies. Think of our scheme as a ponzi scheme, not a taxpayer funded scheme, the population keeps growing so there are more contributors and costs are controlled so the impact on the public purse is limited but public health is more important than creating a political nightmare

The bigger insurance companies have a distinct advantage in all the markets which they have effectively carved up and dominated.
It goes back to the rent seeking that comes with over regulation. Of course the major insurers love the fact that They can make arrangements with states ,through their laws ,to reduce competition. Any reform of the existing system must remove these monopolies and allow purchases across state lines . But there is one thing ….Obamacare made many of the mandates federal mandates . So yeah states are complicit in the unholy alliance. But so is the feds .

but public health is more important than creating a political nightmare

It's certainly a higher priority than say aircraft carriers.


It goes back to the rent seeking that comes with over regulation. Of course the major insurers love the fact that They can make arrangements with states ,through their laws ,to reduce competition. Any reform of the existing system must remove these monopolies and allow purchases across state lines . But there is one thing ….Obamacare made many of the mandates federal mandates . So yeah states are complicit in the unholy alliance. But so is the feds .

I tried to make the point to JL that nearly everyone has insurance through the job, so guess who has the leverage for price control?

I tried to make the point to JL that nearly everyone has insurance through the job, so guess who has the leverage for price control?

The figure is actually a little over 70%, so it's hardly "nearly everyone", but you do have a valid point. I can tell you that Blue Cross does exercise price controls as does, of course, Medicare and no doubt most other insurance companies. But there is still but very little incentive for the average person to look at what they are being charged. A high deductible would eliminate that problem.

How/ Please elaborate.

When was the last time you asked a doctor how much a procedure was going to cost? Most people don't really care since they are not going to pay for it, all of which allows cost to become a very minor consideration. Now if you had to pay for it, then you would care a great deal.

Just ask yourself this question. When was the last time you walked into a doctor's office and saw prices posted?

You get a pain in your gut that has lasted for a day or two you go to a doctor for relief not discounts, after the pepto doesn't work. Good luck telling a GP what tests he will order, from your complaints. Now you can get those prices before hand in a walk in clinic (In Texas anyway), but emergency rooms triage everybody by need and intake information. The wait time for non insured, non emergency cases could be hours.

Go ahead shop around for the best deals by doctors and let me know how that works out, or how much you suffered through. You need a price setting structure in place for sure and who sets the price is the crucial point and right now the health care industry sets prices and states regulate the rules. Therein lies the whole problem in making things affordable.

Poor people had no options before Obama Care, and now that they have it, I doubt we go back to insurance companies running the whole show, or repubs repealing a darn thing. They have been successful in raising costs by eliminating the mandate, and bring back junk insurance you don't find out is useless until you try to use it.

If a person could pay for his own health care we wouldn't NEED insurance but even the rich guys have high costs for doctor care, but don't have to choose between seeing a doctor, and paying rent or groceries. Healthy people betting they will never be sick or injured is not a good bet, and a crap shoot.

Go ahead shop around for the best deals by doctors and let me know how that works out, or how much you suffered through. You need a price setting structure in place for sure and who sets the price is the crucial point and right now the health care industry sets prices and states regulate the rules. Therein lies the whole problem in making things affordable.

Well, it works for everything else. I purchase prescription drugs at the cheapest place I can find. I shop for the best deal on cars, but the problem is you cannot shop for the best prices on health care because no one advertises prices. Why? Because we basically don't care. We think that it doesn't matter since someone else (we think) will pay for anyway. I went to see a doc yesterday because he had scheduled a follow up visit. It was a complete waste of time and money, but it wasn't MY money, so I was not so concerned. Now if the expense had fallen on ME, I would not have gone.

If I had some sort of insurance that would buy a new car for me every five years, I would buy a LOT more care than I typically do, and I would not really care about the cost of the car. When someone else is perceived as paying for it, we don't care about cost. When we have to pay for it, we care a great deal.

You can shop for health insurance and get all the price quotes you want to get the cheapest price.

You can shop for health insurance and get all the price quotes you want to get the cheapest price.

That's kind of my point.

Isn't the point of insurance to keep us from worrying about paying for stuff we cannot afford?

Isn't the point of insurance to keep us from worrying about paying for stuff we cannot afford?

Insurance is meant to pay for things that would be catastrophic. Yes, I agree with that idea completely. Office visits, tests, minor surgeries, etc. should not be covered since those items are not things we can't pay for. That would lower the cost of health insurance and cause us to pay a lot more attention to what we are being charged.

Speak for yourself! How much are your GP visits? Mine are nearly $600 bucks, and that's catastrophic.

Speak for yourself! How much are your GP visits? Mine are nearly $600 bucks, and that's catastrophic.

And you argue against my suggestions, and mine cost me ZERO, you live in a different reality, ripped off by the medical profession, the insurers and your government

And you argue against my suggestions, and mine cost me ZERO, you live in a different reality, ripped off by the medical profession, the insurers and your government.

They don't cost you zero. You pay for it through taxes, and the part you don't cover has to be paid by someone else. There is no free lunch.


Speak for yourself! How much are your GP visits? Mine are nearly $600 bucks, and that's catastrophic.

If you are paying six hundred bucks for a regular GP visit, then you need to find another doctor. That's an outrage and just goes to illustrate my point.

They don't cost you zero. You pay for it through taxes, and the part you don't cover has to be paid by someone else. There is no free lunch.

Let me try and put this in perspective for you, I don't pay tax or the levy, my income being insufficient or exempt. I did pay tax at one time so you could say I prepaid.

You live in a regime which extracts the greatest amount of blood with a great deal of bleeting, I don't. My thought processes on this and many subjects is quite different to yours and this comes from education and experience. I once thought as you do that it was a terrible idea that government should levy my income and use that money to pay for medical services but 40 years later I see that the outcome has, by and large, worked out well for most of the population. The system is not perfect but health care isn't the issue here that it is for you. I go to a doctor of my choice and if he has opted to be in the system, which he has, I don't pay for his services, he bills the government. Should I go to a doctor who wants me to pay directly for his services and some specialists do, I receive a rebate of part of the fee from the government. I have never been asked to pay anything like $600 for a visit to any doctor, and that includes radiology.

The way this works is that they is a pool of funds out of which the fees are paid, you could say it is insurance but in reality it is not

You live in a regime which extracts the greatest amount of blood with a great deal of bleeting, I don't. My thought processes on this and many subjects is quite different to yours and this comes from education and experience. I once thought as you do that it was a terrible idea that government should levy my income and use that money to pay for medical services but 40 years later I see that the outcome has, by and large, worked out well for most of the population. The system is not perfect but health care isn't the issue here that it is for you. I go to a doctor of my choice and if he has opted to be in the system, which he has, I don't pay for his services, he bills the government. Should I go to a doctor who wants me to pay directly for his services and some specialists do, I receive a rebate of part of the fee from the government. I have never been asked to pay anything like $600 for a visit to any doctor, and that includes radiology.

That's fine by me. I just wanted to point out that while your visit might cost zero to you, someone has to pay for it, and that process by itself will not hold down the cost of med care. When a doctor "bills the government", the doctor actually is billing the taxpayer. As to your "education and experience", it would seem that the experience that has made a great impression on you is someone else paying your medical bills, and that someone would be the taxpayers.

I don't know where Tal got the six hundred dollar office visit from. Mine are closer to ten percent of that figure.

More than half the costs are lab fees Obviously you are healthier than I am at this point in time. I pay $20 bucks out of pocket.

More than half the costs are lab fees Obviously you are healthier than I am at this point in time. I pay $20 bucks out of pocket.

So someone else has to pay the rest. If you are talking about Medicare, then at least you can say that, in years past, you paid in your share. That's a little different animal. And yet it all does absolutely, positively, nothing to hold down costs, unlike if you had to pay the costs yourself. In fact, the hidden nature of what is being charged and why all of tests are being done is an encouragement for prices to go up.

Don't you just hate circular arguments, rhetorical question

So someone else has to pay the rest. If you are talking about Medicare, then at least you can say that, in years past, you paid in your share. That's a little different animal. And yet it all does absolutely, positively, nothing to hold down costs, unlike if you had to pay the costs yourself. In fact, the hidden nature of what is being charged and why all of tests are being done is an encouragement for prices to go up.

I and most of us pay a premium every month plus a deductible every year, for 80/20 insurance. That's not going to change, even as I make that Medicare (Another 80/10 deal) transition, which is an added cost in my household, and while I agree that the price is way too high for health insurance, I think the price is to high for EVERYTHING, as we both have seen things go up. That's why I think it's more a systematic issue than just one thing. The good news is more people working and in theory sharing costs across the board, and maybe that should stabilize the cost of health care, but not for a few years at best as we get more and better new ways of doing things.

For now though, we are caught in a mess that needs fixing at a time when more people NEED more. I don't see quick simple fixes, either, as it's a more long term process that needs implementation. That signals to me to keep working on it. LOL, one of my doctors just informed me they don't accept Medicare payments, and I would be responsible for any charges and fees, and have to be reimbursed by Medicare, or the supplemental carrier, so guess whose shopping around for a new doctor? I liked her, but cannot keep her.

I feel like buying a new truck and telling everybody to go to hell!

The good news is more people working and in theory sharing costs across the board, and maybe that should stabilize the cost of health care,

True in some ways, but it does nothing to lower the cost of health care, only to perhaps lower the cost of health insurance per individual. That, as I understand it, can only happen when more young people get on insurance rolls and essentially subsidize the care of the older folk like us.


so guess whose shopping around for a new doctor? I liked her, but cannot keep her.

Now that is how health care costs can be contained at least some, but it didn't happen until cost became a factor, not for Medicare of an insurance company, but for you.


Don't you just hate circular arguments, rhetorical question.

I don't think you understand what a circular argument is.

Life is about MY costs and the ways to mitigate them. Should I buy the truck and enjoy, or pay a doctor and live? The thought of forking over my hard earned dollars to help a doctor pay for his summer home irks the heck out of me. I must note that I didn't feel that way 20 years ago when I was shaking my butt every weekend partying with the peeps. 8D The good old days.

Life is about MY costs and the ways to mitigate them. Should I buy the truck and enjoy, or pay a doctor and live?

When the alternative is to make someone else pay the bills, then I think you should postpone the truck and pay your own way.


I must note that I didn't feel that way 20 years ago when I was shaking my butt every weekend partying with the peeps.

Now that made me laugh! Oh to be young again, but to know what we know now. I would do a much better job a second time around.

Nice question

If you are a med doctor, then your comments will be insightful. Of course you are welcome one way or the other, but especially so if you're a health care provider.

When the alternative is to make someone else pay the bills, then I think you should postpone the truck and pay your own way.

I haven't asked anyone to pay a darn thing and point out I still pay premiums every month and deductibles every year and co pays per visit for 80/20 insurance. You pay Medicare premiums as will I very soon for more of this 80/20 crap! I'm more than ready to try something else and those insurance companies can KMA, and those doctors need to GUARANTEE their work, or give my money back!


Now that made me laugh! Oh to be young again, but to know what we know now. I would do a much better job a second time around.

Unfortunately I'm still trying to get this time around right cause its all I got!

I haven't asked anyone to pay a darn thing and point out I still pay premiums every month and deductibles every year and co pays per visit for 80/20 insurance. You pay Medicare premiums as will I very soon for more of this 80/20 crap! I'm more than ready to try something else and those insurance companies can KMA, and those doctors need to GUARANTEE their work, or give my money back!

OK. If you are on insurance, then you're good to go. Your comment about the truck took me in the wrong direction.

Yeah, I'm on Medicare. Turned 65 about six months ago. Good news/bad news.

Which Medicare supplement plan? Hope you got the right one during your initial open enrollment? Did you sit down with someone or just wing it like too many do, and get stuck in something they later lack the ability to qualify for because of medical conditions or declining health? You only have that one shot to get the right plan without being subject to any of that. Every other one after that depends on your health to qualify.

Too complex, what ever happened to equality

Too complex, what ever happened to equality

The concept of equality of outcome is not to be found (thank goodness) in the Constitution. The only equality I know of there is found in the concept of equal protection of the law, which is completely different.

Is not the ACA a law? Therefore if it doesn't afford individuals equal protection from excessive charges it is unconstitutional, same goes for what ever followed it

Is not the ACA a law? Therefore if it doesn't afford individuals equal protection from excessive charges it is unconstitutional, same goes for what ever followed it.

There is no constitutional protection from "excessive charges".

Yes there is. The process of law delegates the regulation of the insurance industry to the states and they are tasked with approving those rate hikes, or excessive charges as you put it. The insurance companies have states over a barrel as they can always leave, but in this they act together when requesting or apply for those rate hikes. You have seen Big Biz in general employ this tactics at state federal and local levels. It's called a lobby, and is worth big bucks in the goal of maximizing profitability of their companies with favorable laws on all levels, to legalize those excessive charges. Walmart has done this for years, getting all kinds of tax breaks and subsidies from locals to build and employ citizens. They are not alone and the insurance industry does it just as well.

Think Amazon and GM for perfect examples of this strategy, that create huge revenue streams for years and decades that WE pay for. Think how the big box retail stores partner to manufacture it's goods overseas and ship them here for higher profits, or close existing facilities here for overseas "CHEAPER" labor costs and less regulations. It's a systemic problem those excessive charges, but its entirely LEGAL. I submit we have the evidence of what happens when companies gets a financial windfall from government that is indicative of a broken business model, that allows for citizens to get nickeled and dimed to death.

So by definition there is no such thing as excessive charges since the markets bear them and passes them along to consumers, and consumers have the right to walk away from them. Why don't they?

Specifically to this thread I ask what good is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you ignore the need for good health?

Yes there is.

No, there is not. You went through a long, wordy explanation in which you never referred to the Constitution. Why? Because there is no constitutional protection from "excessive charges". You even admit that, " It's a systemic problem those excessive charges, but its entirely LEGAL.". Well, if it's legal, then it's legal.

You might notice that there are very few companies that market their products as "100% made in America". Why? Because people are not willing to pay the higher costs of products made in America as opposed to being made in a foreign country. I've actually tried to buy American in the past, and I found that it's a very difficult thing to do. Just finding clothes, for instance, made in America is difficult. When buying tools, I notice that the relatively few American made tools will be two to four times the price of the imported ones. I'm not sure what the answer is to that. If we restrict imports, then the libs give Mr. Trump heck for doing so and prices will go up.

But there is no constitutional guarantee against "excessive charges". It's nonsense.

Wrong, The Bill of Rights clearly outlines the right to redress greivances.

https://constitution.com/bill-rights/


Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Should have used this link before, sorry. So gather your EVIDENCE to prove your claim of EXCESSIVE charges and go to court as laid out in the constitution. SIMPLE!

Wrong, The Bill of Rights clearly outlines the right to redress greivances.

This has become comical. I say, "You can't quote the Constitution as to a guarantee against excessive charges." You reply, "Yes, I can. Look at the Bill of rights. It says we can petition the government for a redress of grievances." Really?? Well, that is very impressive, but where does it say we have a guarantee against "excessive charges"? And why didn't you say we also have freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms? They have about the same relevance to being protected against excessive charges, which is to say NO RELEVANCE.

You have no evidence at all. None, period. There is no constitutional guarantee against excessive charges. If there was, then you would have quoted it.

The great protection against excessive charges is the free market. That's why I can't sell a 12 ounce Coke in practically any place in America for 10 dollars. Why? Because the store down the street will sell them for 95 cents. It's a great system. It generally only breaks down when the government establishes protectionist policies such as New Jersey not allowing people to pump their own gas, and thereby guaranteeing that people will pay more for gas. It also breaks down when monopolies are formed by private businesses.

Your free market solution hasn't stopped those excessive charges. Must be some loophole in your logic.

Your free market solution hasn't stopped those excessive charges. Must be some loophole in your logic.

That's sort of my point. There is very little free market in the health care field. Prices are not posted or advertised. A doctor sends me for tests. I have no idea what they will cost, and there are few alternatives to check out.

We make the same point almost as there is very little free market anywhere except the MO'MONEY part, with plenty of loopholes to hide behind. It's a pervasive systemic problem, illustrated by deficit spending for permanent tax cuts for the rich and temporary consumer tax cuts for the middle income citizens.

We make the same point almost as there is very little free market anywhere except the MO'MONEY part, with plenty of loopholes to hide behind. It's a pervasive systemic problem, illustrated by deficit spending for permanent tax cuts for the rich and temporary consumer tax cuts for the middle income citizens.

Bread, bicycles, guns, furniture, soft drinks, televisions, tires, flashlights, shoes, jackets, washing machines, windows, hats, and thousands of other items all benefit enormously from free market competition. That is not true of nearly all of the health care business.

There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut for anyone. Deficit spending cannot be fixed by taxing the rich. No way, no how. You could double the taxes on the rich and still have deficits. TOO MUCH SPENDING.

The great protection against excessive charges is the free market. ........... It's a great system. It generally only breaks down when the government establishes protectionist policies such as New Jersey not allowing people to pump their own gas, and thereby guaranteeing that people will pay more for gas.


Your argument is flawed.

In the northeast, full-serve New Jersey is the second cheapest in gas prices - only Maine is slightly lower. Nationwide, New Jersey is cheaper than 20 states - all of which are self-serve.

There are many factors effecting the price of gasoline - a free market being only one. Adam Smith's free market represented the economies of late 18th century England where business tended to be small entities - cottage industries and mom and pop outfits. The world has changed since then.

Economies are enormously complex these days and cannot operate efficiently without appropriate government regulation.

In the northeast, full-serve New Jersey is the second cheapest in gas prices - only Maine is slightly lower. Nationwide, New Jersey is cheaper than 20 states - all of which are self-serve.

Yes, but thanks to the government mandate against self serve, it is plainly higher than it would otherwise be.


Adam Smith's free market represented the economies of late 18th century England where business tended to be small entities - cottage industries and mom and pop outfits. The world has changed since then.

Yes, but the price and quality advantages reaped from the free market have not changed. It's still just as effective and likely much more so.


Economies are enormously complex these days and cannot operate efficiently without appropriate government regulation.

Free enterprise does not need a complete absence of government regulation, but that it should be minimal and not grant competitive advantages to one group above another. For instance, there should be strict laws against monopolies. It works best where competition is allowed to flourish. Thus we see an enormous problem in the field of health care. There is but little competition with price, and the consumer typically never knows what the price will be until the medical care is finished.

So has anyone reached the conclusion that BO created the conditions for the perfect storm in health care costs

So has anyone reached the conclusion that BO created the conditions for the perfect storm in health care costs

As much as I would like to say yes, I have to admit it was an enormous problem long before 2009. Now did he do anything to curtail it? No.

Bread, bicycles, guns, furniture, soft drinks, televisions, tires, flashlights, shoes, jackets, washing machines, windows, hats, and thousands of other items all benefit enormously from free market competition. That is not true of nearly all of the health care business.

I see your issue now. You equate stuff with good health outcomes. Not unusual for someone without a health issue. I think those that NEED health care would beg to differ. You mix apples and oranges and expect the same strategy to work. Let me ask why is there no competition in the health insurance business and whose fault is that?


There is no such thing as a permanent tax cut for anyone. Deficit spending cannot be fixed by taxing the rich. No way, no how. You could double the taxes on the rich and still have deficits. TOO MUCH SPENDING.

Corporate tax cuts are permanent according to the bill passed by repubs. Individual tax cuts expire in 5 years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/15/in-political-gamble-gop-gives-permanent-tax-cuts-to-corporations-but-not-people/?utm_term=.cbb3b06782d5

And

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/republicans-corporate-tax-rate-isnt-permanent.html



making the bill little more than a temporary cash transfer to stockholders.[/B]


I guess nothing can be considered permanent when a future congress can change things So I will concede your point.

Corporate tax cuts are permanent according to the bill passed by repubs. Individual tax cuts expire in 5 years.

Corporate taxes are not simply taxes on the rich. Tens of millions of people profit from investments in corporations. Anyone on a retirement plan would be one of them.

I am familiar with the theory, but the facts of your statement have to be verified by facts after an outcome and so far I doubt seriously if the data backs up your theory. My theory is that the tax cuts as structured, without closing high end loop holes as incentives to invest in economic growth offer more options for the recipients than they do for the general economy, trillions in deficits, and point to GM's corporate decision to close old non profitable plants in America and build new ones in Mexico as an example of poorly structured and poorly implemented policy.

So tell those workers losing their jobs how great those tax cuts work for them since having no paycheck leaves nothing to tax in the first place. GM stock went up after the announcement. Yeah I'm sure that's great for Americans.

"In an April 2012 Gallup poll, 53 percent of respondents said they had money invested in the stock market. That was the smallest percentage in any poll since Gallup began tracking the number. The high was 67 percent in June 2002."

What should I tell the people who love 3.7% unemployment??

Maybe we should see how those towns in 3 states are affected and if they are as thrilled as you are. The same thing happened to those plants in Indiana after they got their tax cuts from the state to keep them. Are we seeing a pattern here?

And let's see now. Whose idea was it to give billions of borrowed dollars to GM? Oh yeah. It was that famous democrat pres, wasn't it?

I really don't know what your point is about GM. They did a lousy job of anticipating future trends in the auto business and it has jumped up and bitten them. When companies do a lousy job in the free enterprise system, it ends up bad. However, when companies do well, as many are doing now, they prosper and their employees keep their jobs. The democrat pres you admire so much tried to prop them up and it hasn't turned out too well. So much for government interference.

That doesn't explain why GM is moving to Mexico after the great tax cut windfall from the Dufus, and his sycophants, does it?

GM is moving some production from Canada to Mexico. They are moving some truck production from Mexico to Flint. The beat goes on. In the meantime, unemployment is at 3.7%. Whining and complaining seem somehow out of place.

But none of this impacts the cost of health care.

GM is moving some production from Canada to Mexico. They are moving some truck production from Mexico to Flint. The beat goes on. In the meantime, unemployment is at 3.7%. Whining and complaining seem somehow out of place.

But none of this impacts the cost of health care.

Obviously you have never seen what happens to towns when plants move out, or have any sympathy for those losing there jobs... AMERICANS!

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2018/11/26/18112988/general-motors-plant-closures-tariffs-trump

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2018/11/26/generalmotors/


The company said Monday that it will stop production at five plants next year. The affected plants are Detroit-Hamtramck and Warren Transmission in Michigan, Lordstown Assembly in Ohio, Oshawa Assembly in Ontario, Canada, and Baltimore Operations in Maryland.The closures will affect some 3,300 workers in the U.S., and another 3,000 globally.

YUP! The beat goes on, for some anyway.

I have great sympathy for those who lose their jobs, but I don't plan on living in some sort of fantasy land where everything always turns out wonderful. When unemployment is as low as it is now, it borders on indecent to find the nothing but the negative to gripe about. I know what it's like to be unemployed. Did that for fifteen months in my younger days. We just got busy and made it through. It's life.

You mean you don't live in the great american utopia made great by the great american dope

If it takes a dope to get to historic lows in unemployment, then we need a lot more of them.

Obama got him most of the way.

The whole thing is interesting, what is a taxation, in the form of tariff, led recovery. BO sought to also use taxation to reform health care. How Trump can reduce the tax to the rich and tax the poor in the form of tariffs eludes me, obviously a great man of the people

tax the poor in the form of tariffs eludes me, obviously a great man of the people

That's one way to look at it. Another way is the use of tariffs to protect American jobs.

I think you will find that those protections will be short lived, he is likely to do more damage than good

I think you will find that those protections will be short lived, he is likely to do more damage than good

Could be. I am not a big fan of Mr. Trump, but I do like the fact that he does not sit idly by while foreign competitors are allowed unfair advantages over American companies. We'll see if he can do much about it or not, but at least he is giving it a go.

He's a dufus and tariffs have been tried before and failed. Even conservatives are wondering What the FARK!

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-trade-war-china-exports-us-hold-up-heres-why-2018-12-1027805823

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/06/02/the-effects-of-trumps-steel-tariffs-on-red-state-energy/#15e293074b88

Glad you like the bluster and hell raising but he ain't done squat.

Now, Tal, be fair he hasn't been idle. He has worn his finger to the bone on twitter announcing policy on the run. Every idea that has crossed his path no matter how bizzaire has feature in his twitter. Twitter on little bird, but watch out for the snare

Well repubs are at it again...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-by-texas-judge

Seems after controlling congress for 8 years, with the WH the last 2, they would have finally figured out a plan. They didn't. Of course dems will appeal.

This latest conservative antic will surely save us all a bunch of money.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F168%2F16851%2F1685112.jpg&t=1544965295&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c0f-41002b01ea00&sig=tB9QdNCTRC7oP9VRUrjWlw--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/jeffdanziger/s-2156603?ezine=640&r=OJIS-8nHRlpVACJiy3Q0eAPqG3OHSLT4FbrBHxuzRYhDOjUxMDM2OTA 1Oko6MTgwODEwNDpMOjY0MDpSOjE2MTc2MjpTOjIxNTY2MDM6V jo0Mg)

Obama ran up nearly ten tril in debt in only eight years. Please don't try and tell me you are concerned about the national debt. You only look for a convenient brick to throw at Trump.

You really cannot see that running a debt during a recession is a MUST for governments? You really cannot understand that bringing out and adding to the budget not one but two wars was a GREAT move to shed light the TRUE costs of such endeavors, so as to be dealt with responsibly? Hey dude just look at where we were before and after Obama! Something worked pretty good if the dufus inherited a great economy and MANAGEABLE debt. It's still manageable, but repubs are notorious for not doing that well with the people's money. YES there is much evidence of that. So get off blaming Obama and stay on the dufus because even you must admit there is much more to throw at him than praise him for.

I mean lets start with what has the dufus done with the debt and deficit, or repubs in general the last two years? Be warned I have FACTS, EVIDENCE, and plenty of bricks, so what have YOU got? FAIR as I can get?

You really cannot see that running a debt during a recession is a MUST? You really cannot understand that bringing out and adding to the budget not one but two wars was a GREAT move to shed light the TRUE costs of such endeavors, so as to be dealt with responsibly? Hey dude jut look at where we were before and after Obama!

Yeah. More than doubling the national debt was a really responsible move. But so much of it was absolutely essential spending such as giving out free cell phones and bailing out your beloved GM.

So you would rather have hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans unemployed during a time when we were losing jobs at a fantastic pace already? Bailouts were a LOAN that has been repaid, and that's not a good move? You did know that those loans had a jobs program for the states and tax relief for many Americans don't you or do you need some links to the facts and evidence... AGAIN?

In the meantime while you mull that over, MORE BRICKS!

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F168%2F16846%2F1684600.gif&t=1544971082&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c7a-ec000101ed00&sig=GnQYI91wH6EwDcMpyNFxlw--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/lisabenson/s-2155913?ezine=641)

The had a cell phone program before Obama got there.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/


Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was
created (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1997/nrcc7032.html) as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes (http://www.usac.org/about/universal-service/)four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink program mentioned in the chain e-mail.

So you would rather have hundreds of thousands of your fellow Americans unemployed during a time when we were losing jobs at a fantastic pace already? Bailouts were a LOAN that has been repaid, and that's not a good move? You did know that those loans had a jobs program for the states and tax relief for many Americans don't you or do you need some links to the facts and evidence... AGAIN?

In the meantime while you mull that over, MORE BRICKS!

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2F168%2F16846%2F1684600.gif&t=1544971082&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1c7a-ec000101ed00&sig=GnQYI91wH6EwDcMpyNFxlw--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/lisabenson/s-2155913?ezine=641)

The had a cell phone program before Obama got there.

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/


Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was
created (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1997/nrcc7032.html) as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes (http://www.usac.org/about/universal-service/)four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. (A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created a decade earlier; the telecommunications act expanded and formalized it.) According to Eric Iversen, USAC director of external relations, the Universal Service Fund more recently began funding programs that provide wireless service, such as the pre-paid cellular SafeLink program mentioned in the chain e-mail.


Funny how a little truth clears up so many right-wing falsehoods. Trump could use a moral bath and scrub himself with a truthbrush.

Not quite the rosy pic you try to portray.

"The main purpose of the bailout was to save jobs at GM. But GM had to slash its employment and production anyway. Toyota and Honda continued to increase their U.S. factories, providing jobs for American auto workers.
If there had been no bailout, Ford, Toyota, and Honda would have picked up even more market share. Since they had U.S. plants, they would have increased jobs for Americans once the recession (https://www.thebalance.com/recession-definition-and-meaning-3305958) was over. The loss of GM would be like the loss of Pan Am, TWA, and other companies that had a strong American heritage but lost their competitiveness. It would have perhaps tugged at the heartstrings of America but not really hurt the economy. As a result, the auto industry bailout was not critical to the U.S. economy, like the rescue of AIG or the banking system."

https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chrysler-3305670

The Big Three automakers asked Congress (https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-congress-definition-duties-effect-on-economy-3305980) for help similar to the bank bailout (https://www.thebalance.com/what-was-the-bank-bailout-bill-3305675). They warned that General Motors Company and Chrysler LLC faced bankruptcy and the loss of 1 million jobs.


The federal government took over GM and Chrysler in March 2009. It fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner and required Chrysler to merge with Italy's Fiat S.p.A. The Obama administration (https://www.thebalance.com/what-has-obama-done-11-major-accomplishments-3306158) used the take-over to set new auto efficiency standards. That improved air quality and forced U.S. automakers to be more competitive against Japanese and German firms.


On December 18, 2014, the Treasury Department ended the bailout. That's when it sold its last remaining shares of Ally Financial, formerly known as General Motors Acceptance Corporation. It had bought them for $17.2 billion to infuse cash into the failing GM subsidiary. The Treasury Department sold the shares for $19.6 billion, making a $2.4 billion profit for taxpayers.


On December 19, 2008, President Bush (https://www.thebalance.com/bush-administration-economic-policies-3305556) agreed to a $24.9 billion bailout (https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1333.aspx) using TARP: $13.4 billion for GM, $5.5 billion (https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1362.aspx) for Chrysler, and $5 billion (https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1335.aspx)for GMAC.

Hey I thought this was Obamas idea? He inherited a doozy didn't he with a financial crisis and two off the books deficit funded wars to greet him.

No the picture wasn't rosy, but it wasn't the disaster it could have been. As you see from the outcome of Obama's (With Bushes idea) recovery. Hey millions of folks is millions of folks, and you sure didn't want them on welfare all at once did you? Can't you appreciate the good of a controlled wind down as opposed to a huge CRASH.

Despite the rights critique I still hold it was done fairly well considering the banks and financial sectors caused the collapse of global economies and safeguards were developed to prevent it with repubs and supply siders of course trying to get rid of them.


Fact is the dufus said he would stop American companies from moving to other countries and of course he LIED. Just wanted to point that out.

One reason for the rise of health care I believe can be found by repubs and their dufus fiddling around with the ACA trying to get rid of it without a plan for replacement. Sound logical to me given the facts.

Working out really well for all those GM employees. In the meantime, Toyota is now operating 14 plants in the U.S. They have received no federal funding. It is just the fruit of a well run company.

Ever been to a town where a long time plant has been closed? The towns literally die. Wonder why GM cannot build a new plant in those towns?

Ever been to a town where a long time plant has been closed? The towns literally die. Wonder why GM cannot build a new plant in those towns?

Why would they need a new plant?

If you haven't worked it out yet, plant closures are about labour relations, new plants, new negotiations and contracts, reopening in old towns, where are the people? Skilled people move on

Bear with me as I'm still following this development,

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2018/12/14/gm-expects-shift-most-workers-idled-plants-next-year/2310253002/,

AND

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/22/news/companies/gm-chevy-blazer-mexico/index.html

The development of a new dinosaur?

More the perpetration of an old one. Profits over people. The business model is old as human knowledge. Older than most religions, and as powerful as any of them.

Profits over people.

You know what they call a company that ignores the need for profits? Bankrupt.

No they call it a non profit organisation

So the need for profit trumps the needs of people?

No they call it a non profit organisation

Even a non-profit must still balance the books.

No they call it a non profit organisation

Took the words right out of my mouth.

So list the non-profits you know of that are engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing jobs for hundreds or thousands of people. I find that the only people who like to talk about the need for putting people ahead of profits are people who are not running a business.

Even a non-profit must still balance the books.

That's a totally different thing than profits over people.

So list the non-profits you know of that are engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing jobs for hundreds or thousands of people. I find that the only people who like to talk about the need for putting people ahead of profits are people who are not running a business.

So let people die that need treatment for a life threatening condition if it doesn't make a profit?

Why don't you pay for it? If affordability is not important, then why can't Tal simply pay for it? Amazing how easy it is to decide how other people should spend their money.

Goods and services are VOLUNTARY, not so with treatments for illnesses. That requires INSURANCE unless you are that rich you can afford almost anything. Affordability is important and I have not indicated otherwise. Just don't lump health insurance into the same category as a new truck. Hey if you want to die of cancer go ahead, but don't tell me someone that wants to be cared for but cannot afford insurance, should die.

What does that have to do with YOUR money any way? We have already talked about taxes, and funding the social safety net, so if you are not happy with that then you change it. So far your efforts have not led to the repeal of the law that allows government to tax for the general welfare of it's citizens.

Comes down to you not caring if people can't afford INSURANCE right?

Goods and services are VOLUNTARY, not so with treatments for illnesses. I would actually rank food, clothing, and shelter ahead of health care.


That requires INSURANCE unless you are that rich you can afford almost anything. Affordability is important and I have not indicated otherwise. Just don't lump health insurance into the same category as a new truck.

I'm all for insurance. The great majority of health care procedures do not require rich people type money. As for trucks, you were the one who said you would buy a truck rather than use that money to pay for your own health care.


What does that have to do with YOUR money any way? We have already talked about taxes, and funding the social safety net, so if you are not happy with that then you change it. So far your efforts have not led to the repeal of the law that allows government to tax for the general welfare of it's citizens.

Taxes have a lot to do with my money. As I have stated many times before, I get tired of liberals who want to claim some kind of moral high ground because they are willing to force other people to take care of the poor. So far as I can tell, most liberal dems don't care one whit for the poor if it comes down to them having to spend their own money.

We could try an interesting experiment. We could allow people to designate a voluntary tax that would be used ONLY for helping the poor. All other welfare programs would cease and no borrowed money could be used. If I had to guess, I'd say that most of the money given would come from conservatives. I'd even be willing to go one step farther and put a tax surcharge (2% of income??) that EVERYONE would have to pay that would be used for poor people. Only that money could be used. At least then we would all be aware of what is going to help poor people. But as for this garbage that I hear frequently to the effect that we need to go after the wealthy because, after all, liberals are big-hearted people, I just find it to be a nauseating idea and I have made it one of my missions in life to never let a lib get away with it.

But all of that aside, if we do not slow down the growth of health care costs, we are heading to a place where we will have the best health care that no one can afford.

I would actually rank food, clothing, and shelter ahead of health care.

As would I, but if you have health issues it's hard to balance those priorities and something has to give. I lived off rice and beans and didn't buy a new coat back in the day, but it's a different story now. Cat food doesn't sound appealing right now.


I'm all for insurance. The great majority of health care procedures do not require rich people type money. As for trucks, you were the one who said you would buy a truck rather than use that money to pay for your own health care.

That may well be true for healthy people, but hundreds of millions Americans have chronic conditions, (http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/archives/whocares/awareness/what_is.html) and I remember your account of your own experience and a broken cut finger might break my bank lol. As for the truck, I can say my health care costs right now do account in great part why I'm not shopping for one, as well as auto insurance. Those are rather high too. NO lol about it.


Taxes have a lot to do with my money. As I have stated many times before, I get tired of liberals who want to claim some kind of moral high ground because they are willing to force other people to take care of the poor. So far as I can tell, most liberal dems don't care one whit for the poor if it comes down to them having to spend their own money.

Find a conservative shoulder to cry on with that nonsense!


We could try an interesting experiment. We could allow people to designate a voluntary tax that would be used ONLY for helping the poor. All other welfare programs would cease and no borrowed money could be used. If I had to guess, I'd say that most of the money given would come from conservatives. I'd even be willing to go one step farther and put a tax surcharge (2% of income??) that EVERYONE would have to pay that would be used for poor people. Only that money could be used. At least then we would all be aware of what is going to help poor people. But as for this garbage that I hear frequently to the effect that we need to go after the wealthy because, after all, liberals are big-hearted people, I just find it to be a nauseating idea and I have made it one of my missions in life to never let a lib get away with it.

We already have those taxes, fees, and programs or some form or another, and I don't wish to go after the wealthy, but they should pay their fair share but the tax code isn't fair either. Thanks to bought and paid for conservative repubs who worship at the alter of the MO'MONEY crowd and its been my mission to oppose that kind of hypocrisy by conservatives who have gotten away with that attacks on the poor and helpless and needy for a really long time


But all of that aside, if we do not slow down the growth of health care costs, we are heading to a place where we will have the best health care that no one can afford.

We agree pretty much on that my friend just have differing views on how to accomplish it. I favor universal health care, or Medicare for all as a way to centralize and control costs for health care. The free market would help if it didn't lean so supply side in my opinion. I would be more comfortable with a non profit approach than some CEO charged with growing profits.

That's my suggestion for an experiment that has proven to work all over the world. Or maybe doctors, hospitals and insurance providers guarantee a good outcome or don't get paid (Sarcasm font for last comment).

This might help control those costs too!

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.arcamax.com%2Fnewspics% 2Fcache%2Flw600%2F168%2F16851%2F1685188.jpg&t=1545071579&ymreqid=acd6ec88-63d3-b076-1cf6-9c0004011400&sig=QBi.9_Sc0EkL5qKNMDetFw--~C (https://www.arcamax.com/chrisbritt/s-2156770?ezine=641)

We already have those taxes, fees, and programs or some form or another, and I don't wish to go after the wealthy, but they should pay their fair share but the tax code isn't fair either.

So the tax code is not fair? When the top 5% of income earners make 36% of the income but pay 60% of the taxes, that sounds much more than fair to me.

No, it is not fair, because the statistics are skewed as always, corporations should pay more it is the price of doing business and so should high income individuals. The best way would be a simple tax on the gross with no deductions and fiddle room. God sorted it out long ago, just take 10% off the top

God sorted it out long ago, just take 10% off the top

Well, that would mean the top 5% would make 36% of the income but pay only 36% of the taxes, so they would be all for it. Congratulations, Clete. You have now become a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative. So much for those skewed stats.

No, it is not fair, because the statistics are skewed as always, corporations should pay more it is the price of doing business and so should high income individuals. The best way would be a simple tax on the gross with no deductions and fiddle room. God sorted it out long ago, just take 10% off the top

I don't believe God said take 10% off the top, but you got the rest right so welcome to the logical thinkers club. My conservative friend seems to have taken what he wanted and discarded the rest.

Top 5% makes 36% of income but pays 60% of the taxes. We just have to toss your unfair tax rates argument out the window.

Well, that would mean the top 5% would make 36% of the income but pay only 36% of the taxes, so they would be all for it. Congratulations, Clete. You have now become a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative. So much for those skewed stats.

I just aim to be fair, progressive taxation isn't very progressive. Yes, I am a fiscal conservative in as much as I think we should have a solid fiscal system, not destroy incentive and not tax the poor. But I also think that government has a role in making the system work for all, not just the big end of town


I don't believe God said take 10% off the top, but you got the rest right so welcome to the logical thinkers club. My conservative friend seems to have taken what he wanted and discarded the rest.

No it was his system in the Old Testament, and those participating had the benefit of a social welfare program, health care and so on

Top 5% makes 36% of income but pays 60% of the taxes. We just have to toss your unfair tax rates argument out the window.

Unfortunately that's not how a budget works, as the NEEDS of the country should be what dictates tax policy, and while everyone has their own ideas what is NEEDED and NOT, conditions are what has to be applied and we have a lot of history dealing with supply side economics, great for rich guys during a growth period, until THEY screw it up, and we have a financial crisis that needs to be addressed. Reagan raised taxes when needed, and even the first Bush saw that same need but was booted out when he couldn't keep his promise to not raise taxes. While I was not a fan of either, there were some logical and good things they did fiscally. It's totally irresponsible to not have a plan, and process for such events and a bankrupt loving dufus is certainly leading us down that bankruptcy path.

You should have recognized this when he and his repub sycophants FAILED to implement a better plan than Obama care, promised for almost a decade now, and gave big money to rich guys who always want even more (maybe we all do), and started a feckless trade war while touting his great new treaties that NK, China, and Russia laugh at publicly.

Bottom line JL, is that tax cuts for rich guys have NEVER paid for themselves, NEVER paid for the debt, and NEVER stimulated the economy, and the bump it does provide is VERY temporary. You conservatives just keep sticking by your man and enjoy the circus while it's in town. I hope that window is open when you decide to throw out your fiscal LOGIC.

gave big money to rich guys

One more time. The rich guys are paying 60% of the income tax in our country.


Bottom line JL, is that tax cuts for rich guys have NEVER paid for themselves, NEVER paid for the debt, and NEVER stimulated the economy,

Go back and look at the Reagan years. Fed tax revenues increased by 65% in only eight years. The economy took off like a rocket. Same thing is happening now. The problem is not revenue, it is spending.

No the Reagan years were rough on us Midwest people working in manufacturing. Maybe it boomed for you, cool. That's not how many of us remembered the 80's. Conservatives were elated as they loved supply side economics and accepted the crumbs that trickled down, but everybody I knew were taking anything they could find to make ends meet. I have repeatedly said though that his economic flexibility was a great trait that I admired. That was back when conservatives were reasonable and a lot easier to work with. Yeah, that's right I had a lot of admiration for the conservatives of that time, some of which are still around, and but a shadow of there former selves.

The dufus doesn't hold a fig to any of those guys and is a poor mans Reagan at best. More like Tricky Nixon, and likely to meet the same fate.

Reagan's last six years GDP growth ranged anywhere from 3.5 to 7.2%, so I really can't explain how you remember things, but the rest of the world knows what explosive growth that was. He inherited 12% unemployment and took it down to 4%, which is fantastically better than Mr. Obama did, even though Reagan had to face high unemployment AND high inflation left from Jimmy Carter.

As you can see below, average income went up enormously both in the Reagan and Clinton years. Obama? Not so much. As for Mr. Trump, well, you can see for yourself.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/US_real_median_household_income._Timeline.png

Well I guess we didn't get that trickle down, and went through lay offs and reduced working hours, and pay cuts. I did specify Midwest and manufacturing though, didn't I? Look I'm glad you done good under Reagan, but obviously everyone did NOT, but I would respectfully ask you NOT dismiss my own experience just because you know nothing about it. I gave King Reagan (And both Bushes in fact), his due as part of a bigger picture, but that doesn't make him a god, nor the best prez we ever had, a fact you drill about Obama who you give no credit to. I mean you have never acknowledge Obamas upward trajectory by your own graph he gave the dufus, unlike what repubs have historically left dems, yes even King Reagan left his predecessor Bush in a pickle that conservatives didn't like his common sense approach to dealing with it, even though it was Reagans policy throughout his presidency.

Your graph illustrates my point, and you should get a link for that graph so we can see what else you left out. It's not like I don't trust your research or conclusion, but I hope you don't mind if I verify it for myself do you?

"Trust but verify"... King Ronald Reagan.

GREAT advice I have kept close.

I would respectfully ask you NOT dismiss my own experience just because you know nothing about it.

Fair enough.


Your graph illustrates my point, and you should get a link for that graph so we can see what else you left out. It's not like I don't trust your research or conclusion, but I hope you don't mind if I verify it for myself do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_real_median_household_income._Timeline.png

Thanks guy, on both counts. Much appreciate your understanding.

I think we have to add more data to the equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income. png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income.png)

This chart shows how U.S. economic growth is not translating to higher family incomes. U.S. real GDP per household, a measure of average total income per household, has increased since 2000 while the real median income per household did not regain 1999 levels again until 2016, indicating a trend of greater income inequality.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income. png#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita_vs_median_household_income. png#cite_note-2)

I suggest reading the full text below the chart though. Strangely the disparity gap widens during the Clinton years and he balanced the budget. I made boo-koo bucks during his presidency, and he raised taxes.

One way or the other, it went up during the Reagan and Clinton years and down with Obama. Going up now with Trump.

I edited my post a bit, don't know if that makes a difference. Actually the graph shows it was already going down with Obama and has risen steadily through his terms and continues at about the same trajectory with Trump.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/us/politics/trump-obama-economy.html


...But growth has also been unusually steady, set in motion by Mr. Obama’s extraordinary economic interventions early in his presidency. This is now one of the longest periods of uninterrupted economic growth in American history, with 95 straight months of job creation (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/business/economy/jobs-report.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fpatricia-cohen&action=click&contentCollection=undefined&region=stream&module=inline&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection).In the 19 months starting after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the economy has created 3.58 million new jobs — but that is still shy of the 3.96 million created in the last 19 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The nation’s economy has grown at a steadily higher pace in the past year than it did during the end of Mr. Obama’s term, reaching an annualized rate of 4.2 percent in the second quarter of this year.

But the last time it was that high was in 2014 — when Mr. Obama was in charge.



Lets talk when the lying dufus has a fuller record to talk about. Conservatives reluctance to give the ex prez his due is notable.

You are mixing job creation with average income. I was referring to average income which fell steadily under most of Obama's years. I wouldn't deny that Mr. Obama made some progress in the economy, but he did so at a cost of almost 10 trillion dollars of national debt. That's about 30,000 dollars of debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States. That does not strike me as something to be proud of. And yes, the dummies in the republican congress share some of the blame.

That's a really interesting graph you posted. I had not considered the difference between "average income" and "median income".

I followed your link and got a ton of data points to explore. From your link the data on income becomes skewed by adding income to the rich guys and not the average guy's income, in addition if new job creation is just measured in jobs and not wages, you get a nice upward graph, and a low unemployment number, but no account for workforce participation, which again skews the picture. There are many factors involved and any one of those factors can make a difference between accurate and inaccurate much like buying a new auto or house and not factoring in the insurance, taxes, or utilities. You cannot get the true costs without those and other factors.

I wasn't mixing things just considering other factors is all, and your link provided those. I know drives my wife nuts when she gets a great sale, and I ask her about the shipping and handling.