 |
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
That is a very simple and accurate description. However it's an integral part of the capitalists creed. MO'MONEY!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So everyone back in the 60's were all saints? I doubt that.Quote:
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 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) bySen. 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 proposalwas 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 werehealth 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!
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.Quote:
Fire the middle man! Medicare for ALL!
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 geezerswho have paid into the system their whole working lifebeing eligible . So what you propose is that everyone from birth should be on the plan ?
Really you sound likeAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez...how do you pay for it ?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...n-sotu-vpx.cnn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAtiWQR_FYY
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.Quote:
Really you sound like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...how do you pay for it ?
Nancy will school her good, and consider that no other nations pays what we pay for heath care. WHY?
Great question.Quote:
WHY?
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.Quote:
What are you carping when the answer is obvious, a single payer system, administered not for profit.
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.Quote:
We could always look at the other counties that have low taxes and a universal health care system to see how they do it.
It is a simple thing to Google a list and study the data of each country you find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...al_health_care
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?Quote:
It is a simple thing to Google a list and study the data of each country you find.
Why not?Quote:
With the list of countries you found, you'll have to forgive me for having no excitement whatsoever for doing what they are doing.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
ARE WE?
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
Actually, average income in America has either grown or remained stable for every income group over the past fifty years.Quote:
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.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...2521f2f4c6.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/...2521f2f4c6.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/...2521f2f4c6.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.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...ar-perspectiveQuote:
Would love specific link to article that graph came from. Context is important to correlating the data.
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.
Quote:
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-...y-manipulation
And we cannot leave these guys out. Yes it's legal
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...d-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 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.Quote:
the poor get poorer. And supply side economics doesn't trickle down per the link.
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 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 .Quote:
You wonder why prices for health care go up, NEVER down no matter what? You should ask that about everything with a price.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 AM. |