Re: Clinton unveils socialist medical plan

On Sep 20, 1:32 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Igor The Terrible" <igor_the_terri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1190254296.567724.262690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Please show me where tens of millions of Americans are moving to FRANCE for
the "free" healthcare......

That is absurd. OK, for the same reason why 10s of millions of French
are moving to America to gain access to our health care system--bar
health care. ...and I never said FREE health care. Please show me
where in this thread or ANYWHERE I said health care should be free.


I know the problem exists. There is NO solution to this problem.
Small
businesses simply can't afford to offer ANY healthcare insurance that is
in
any way employer-funded.
Ahh...your getting warm. There is always a solution unless a
fundamental law of mathematics are violated. The solution is perhaps
evasive or simply requires more thought.

Expenses = expenses, costs = costs. It doesn't get simpler. If a small
businessperson provides zero healthcare insurance funding for 10 employees
and is then required to partially fund healthcare insurance for all
employees the end result WILL BE LESS THAN 10 employees.

Who pays for the let-go employees healthcare insurance? Taxpayers.

Taxpayers AND your insurance company...who charges you later in higher
premiums


Who WASN'T paying for the employees healthcare insurance prior? Taxpayers.

Therefore it equals a tax increase FOR WHICH those taxpayers get NOTHING in
return.

Of course. We have two unbalanced systems we're paying into that are
two entirely different models and as a result, both are under funded
and neither work worth a damn.


We shouldn't be focusing on the employer. That's a bad habit based on how
things used to work in the past. There was a point in time when we were
industrializing this nation that free healthcare (fully paid for by the
employer) was how they got people off the farms and into the factories.

We're WAAAY past that now.

We shouldn't be focusing on multiple groups. There's only ONE group - us.


OK...finally we can agree on the 'division' in the system is a
disaster to the funding side of health care.


There's something bull*** about that story. It claims a state employee is
looking around for individual healthcare insurance. Why? He's already
covered....


Hard to say. Maybe the insurance he was offered didn't meet his needs
and looked elsewhere.



And, yes, group rate plans are available to individuals.

True, but the cherry picking element remains and it is still
expensive for the working class who can't afford it.



Companies offer all sorts of things to attract and keep employees. It has
nothing to do with being OWED.

Right! Now look at the net result. These perks have become the de
facto in compensation packages by larger result, hence the hurdle was
raised above and beyond what small business can afford. This is
killing entrepreneurialship in this country at it's fundamental
level. Think about how many great ideas and innovations never
materialize because of this.



If you can't afford a Ferrari you can't have a Ferrari. That's life.

Come on PG, let's not meander from the topic. We are not talking
luxury sports cars, we're talking basic human needs.


The comparison you're making is between the small percentage of bankruptcies
that society has to absorb versus the total healthcare insurance cost of
everybody that society would have to absorb. I assure you the former is
much cheaper.

Only until it stabilizes when the controls are fine tuned and in
place.


I've seen premiums go down but only when specified coverage (or some other
variable) also decreases.

Of course. Insurance companies today can underwrite policies for
$5.00/mo. Hey that would be a great bargain...until the consumers
realize they also have a $250,000.00 deductible per calendar year.
What good is that? They are better off taking the $5.00 and play the
lottery.


And keep in mind that this whole mess started
during Clinton's years of taxing the *** out of everybody which caused
businesses to seek more profit by cost-cutting and they decided to pay less
and less of the portion of the employees healthcare insurance cost.

True Klintoon was part of the problem, but a small part of it. The
warning bells went off 25 years ago--at a time when it would have been
a piece of cake to fix. Did anyone act on it? No. It took the back
seat just like our infrastructure, and concerns for our national debt.


You seem to be stuck in the trap that this is somehow not only OWED to you
but OWED to you CHEAP if not free. That's pure Socialist or Communist.

I'm not in a TRAP. You seem to be lost in the numbers. OK maybe I
wasn't clear enough. Everybody pays into the system (no free lunch)
This money is automatically deducted from one's paycheck just like
your income tax, FICA, etc... If you are unemployed, this is deducted
from your benefits, if you are retired and living on a fixed income,
you will be means tested. If you fall short of a yet to be determined
threshold, you get a discount or get it for free. (Let that be a
lesson learned for future employers who want to pay starvation wages),
If you are on disability, the same goes as if you were retired. If
you are chronically unemployed, you do community service and pay for
it that way. There is NO excuse for non-payment.

Why is the current system failing? Look at the supply and demand
mechanism. We have gobs of caregivers out there. (Pure competition?
in other industries yes, in health care NO. more later) In the
insurance industry we have gobs of payers too. So what's happening?
The supply and demand model is working in reverse. This is contrary
to most basic concept of free markets. In capitalism, the consumer
dollar is sovereign. Here is how it plays out and I'm assuming you
understand the principles behind elasticity.

Caregivers: much needed service, their products are many; most
heterogeneous, others homogeneous, offerings are complex and not fully
understood by consumers, hence prices in most cases are tied to
quality of product. consumer opts for the more expensive procedure or
item with little regard for price since the insurance company is
paying for it. Status of this industry: highly inelastic

Insurance industry: service is needed but out of the reach for many.
Many players in industry offering products that are essentially
homogeneous, offering are generally understood by consumers and are
acquired based on the perception of value. (most coverage for least
amount of money). The product's observed by consumers ranging from
required to optional with the median curve moving toward the optional
because of its cost prohibitiveness and perception of value..

Here is a typical scenario:

A person limps into a hospital and after being x-rayed he discovers
his procedure will cost him $20k. After a brief discussion with a
hospital staff member, he is advised that his insurance company
(insurance company A) will not cover items 1, 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 21
of his elected procedure. Pissed off, the patients leaves and goes
home to call around to other hospitals and gets the same crap.
Outraged, the patient now calls his insurance company to find out why
these items are not covered, when Insurance companies B, C, D, F, G,
H... cover them. Seeing that this particular patient is healthy, they
give in and pay for the procedures--that is if the company wants to
keep this patient and others like him.

The net effect: The insurance company is attempting to operate in a
pure competition market with oligopsony mechanisms and restraints.
There is no negotiating capacity for insurance companies and no
incentives for consumers to be thrifty in selecting the best and most
cost effective procedure for their needs.

Result: Escalating costs are a given and are headed for a disaster.



Instead, we could be looking at something that should be INVISIBLE. Do you
have any idea what they're doing on the Interstate in Idaho? No. Do you
care? No. Same here. But you pay for it and so do I. And it gets done.

Yep, the folks in Idaho probably think about the same regarding our
interstate projects and them paying for it. I know where you're going
with this. It is at this point where management is critical to ensure
the funds are distributed in an equitable manner--and to keep the pork
and earmarks (or whatever you want to call them) out.



We don't need a bunch of healthcare insurance companies, we don't even need
ONE. See below.


Then ATTACK the pricks and NOT THE Rich.....
Who is attacking the rich????
Hitlary, Buckwheat, Edwards, etc.
*** those goddamned inbreeds, They offer NOTHIHNG but throwing money
at an unsolved problem. I'm proposing gutting the system and building
something that will work.

That's very drastic....


No. It's the truth. ANY candidates who promises "free" health care
is a goddamed liar and is out scamming for votes, PERIOD.

As a country, we're broke, in fact, we're in hoc to the tune of $9
trillion and well on the way to 10. To cover everyone without
changing the existing model is impossible without creating more
deficits and sending the country further into debt.




In America we regulate the utility companies. So mayb we need to
regulate
the health care INSURANCE industry. Maybe we need to regulate the health
care industry.
That will choke the system. Last and LEAST, it will upset
shareholders

You claim it would choke the system, now prove it.

See above.


Upsetting shareholders is the least of our concerns. Millions and millions
of people stabilize their investment portfolios on utility industry stocks.
Why? Because they ARE stable. And the reason they're stable is that they
are fully regulated.

No they are not fully regulated. And that's why our power grid is an
absolute piece of *** The quality of our potable water supply has
gone down the toilet. Or that roughly 60% of our lineman are going to
retire in 2010 and who is going to replace them?

http://www.ibew.org/articles/05journal/0504/p12_shortage.htm




Regulating the healthcare insurance industry is the wrong choice of words on
my part. We don't need a healthcare insurance industry. However, it serves
(poorly) a regulatory function over the healthcare industry. So if we
eliminate the healthcare insurance industry we have to replace that
regulatory function.

A single payer system would allow market forces to correct a lot of
the problems. Provided good and honest management is in place to
managed the funds.



Medical malpractice insurance is massive because medical malpractice jury
awards are massive.

Agreed!



Agreed. But those aren't incentives for ME.

No. Not as a patient, but as consumers, people like us are getting
screwed.


In a social model, EVERYBODY pays in (bigger funds pool) and since
more people pay in, the costs per person declines.
THIS very issue is one of the biggest problem private insurance
faces. The younger and the healthier segments of our population are
NOT paying into the system; for reasons that they can't afford to or
they elect not to. Now that average population (or medium...which
ever way you want to look at it) is getting older, heath issues arise
and the money is not there to cover the increasing costs. See where
this is heading?

Well, we're heading for a catastrophe.

Yes we are.

But we're about 30 years away right now.

....or a derivative meltdown that could send the U$D into the abyss--
which could happen as soon as next spring.


Note also that this comng catastrophe is temporary. Once it passes by
everything will be very different.

That depends on the outcome.

If it was free people would be seeing their doctors (or somebody) every week
for everything imaginable. The ONLY deterrents are: 1) huge wait times;
and/or, office visit co-pays that make some people think twice. I favor
co-pays that make people think twice. I also think we can re-think this a
bit.

I mentioned co-pays earlier. You're right co-pays are the ideal
filtering mechanism for weeding out hypochondriacs and other abusive
assholes, OTOH, if someone hobbled in with a broken leg, it's pretty
obvious the patient needs help. Therefore little or no co-pay should
be assigned to this incident--unless they broke it during a bank heist
or fleeing from the cops. Here, they would be liable for the entire
cost.

For example, I go see the doctor because my ass hurts. I get a $200 co-pay.
The doctor finds I have Semi-Illiterate Subrogation of The Assological
Canal. When I come back next week Iget ZERO co-pay. See?

See directly above.


If things were left as they are, then I would agree about tripling
costs. I'm proposing to completely gut and restructure the system
while keeping out elements that would drive out costs.
The two largest cost elements right now are malpractice insurance and the
alleged R&D overhead on drugs.
Yep.
We could develop a national self-insurance fund for medical malpractice
and
entirely eliminate that as a cost element.
That could work.
We would also then have to
regulate the litigation process, cap attorney fees and expenses and
drastically limit jury awards.
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST!!!!!
If we extended that to product liability for
drug manufacturers and banned their advertising on TV we could reasonably
expect very significant healthcare and healthcare cost reductions.
Yep. Also reward phama companies that concentrate on CURES. NOT
controlling a disease or ailment.

We absolutely have to get out of the business of rewarding any company for
anything for any reason, ever. The rewards of business are the profit they
make. Period, end of story If that's not enough then go work at the post
office, or whatever.

True. What I was alluding to was utilizing fiscal measures as a
steering mechanism the revenues for non compliance due to their
insistance on their pursuit of illicit profits against the immediate
and long term needs of the market would be consequential windfall to
counter the resulting inflationary pressure they are igniting.


I agree that it looks like way to much R&D is going into permanent
maintenance (at a permanent cost) instead of into actual one-time cures.

EXACTLY

And not being an 85-year old guy with a broke *** I have to wonder how
really important some of these drug products are....

At that point it's time to chill and take in the life that is going
around you. It does the head good--the one that sits above the
waistline..


We can address curing disease easily. Obviously long-term and expensive
research that is clearly a benefit to our species is NOT something that is
apporpriate for any profit-making business. Which is really why we don't
see much curing going on.

It's called revenue streams.

The time from investment to profit is too long
for any normal business model. We're screwing up granting taxpayer dollars
to profit-making businesses to do this work. Once they get the grant
they've already made the profit! We're better off putting those same
taxpayer dollars in gov't labs.

This is the net result of our financial resources getting funneled
into two systems and because of this neither of them work for ***.


IF, we went with a social model
this would virtually give the green light for stem cell R&D. The only
remaining obstacle would be the religious whiners.

Of course, because then you'd have free money from taxpayers paying for stem
cell R&D.

And that's the problem. If a profit-making business thought there was a
profit in stem cell research we'd have stem cell research labs on every
street corner. Stem cell research is exactly one of those areas that should
be entirely removed from the business sector, fully funded AND OWNED by
taxpayers. And when they (if they) come up with something important we (the
taxpayers who paid for it) already own it.

No arguements.


The politics of stem cell research are pure bull***. Most Republicans are
oppossed to taxpayer-funded stem cell research and do not have a significant
religious problem with most of it. Its just by accident of where the line
got drawn that most of the religious opposition is Republican. And the
Socialist Democrats think the gov't should pay for everything because that's
how they generate a never-ending stream of tax increases. I'm absolutely
certain that there isn't one sonofabitch Socialist Democrat in DC who
genuinely gives a *** about stem cell research.


Yep.


Make it 100% business-funded, or make it 100% taxpayer funded, and let
science do what science does.


Right again!!!


Ask any doctor what percent of his/her total gross annual income goes to
his
medical malpractice insurance. Its HUGE. And he/she DOES NOT pay it -
we
pay it.
You do not have to tell me that.
Same is true for hospitals.
Yep
Every drug manufacturer budgets no less than $500 million PER PRODUCT
ANNUALLY for advertising. We should outlaw that yesterday.
Yeah, that and giving doctors kickbacks to use their yet unproven
product. Wait till you see what some of their NET margins are.

Well, as a free enterprise capitalist kinda guy I don't have a problem with
a manufacturer giving incentives to a consumer. I also don't have a problem
with doctors giving freebies all the time...

The current stupid TV Ad is for Restless Leg Syndrome. I don't know ***
about RLS, and I'm pretty sure I don't even want to. But I seriously bet
the cost of the advertising campaign is several times more than the cost of
R&D to make whatever that drug is.

But here's the real scam. Somebody sitting at home sees the commercial and
thinks they got RLS. They make an appointment to see their doctor.
Immediately thousands of dollars in tests and related costs get chewed up.
The doctor is obligated to check and rule out a few things, obligated to
check and confirm some things, and ALL of that was CAUSED by a TV
commercial....

We don't see a lot of doctors complaining too loud about drug costs because
drug advertising is keeping their waiting rooms full.....

This one is SIMPLE. BAN DRUG ADVERTISING. Duh...

Although there is some legitimacy to RLS, the majority of it is
fluff. Looks like the P.T. Barnum effect reinvented--with new
headlights and tail fins.


Other possibilities...change the financing paradigm. No public
companies. Make it easier for them to raise capital either through
bond issues, private equity, and tax breaks (capital preservation) for
meeting certain goals.

Interesting ideas.... Except for the tax break. We should be going the
other way on that. Taxes are taxes are taxes. Pay up - Shut up - Have a
Nice Day. No breaks, for anybody, for any reason, forever.

Again, tax incentives used as a steering mechansm.

Something else...division of labor. Too many nurses and other medical
people are burning out and bailing. Seems like it would make more
sense to divide job description/workloads by two for RN and LPNs. One
focuses more on the administrative side, the other to patient care.
It makes more sense to have two RNs working at a cost of $80k./yr than
one working OT and making $100k that is overworked to the point of
burning out and subject to making mistakes that more often than not
result in lawsuits. This is especially the case in busy hospitals. I
don't have the numbers to substantiate this but, my instincts are
suspect of this and if I had the time, I would dig into this just to
satisfy my own curiosity..


.