• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Capitalism + Healthcare = Death

Next time you have a hospital procedure ask for an itemized bill as submitted to insurance. Chances are you couldn't pay for it with years of gross income. Up through the 1960's and 1970's, a middle-income family could get by paying their own bills without insurance; my family did it. But now, it would bankrupt most anyone if they had to fork over the ca$h for even an ER visit just to get a cut stitched up. Its just plain wrong...

The problem is that our healthcare system is the furthest thing from capitalistic. The vast majority of customers have dictated pricing through government agencies, all at forced losses. Secondarily to that, as you illustrated, people use the ED for things it isn't meant for. You don't need to go to the ED for a cut that needs a few stitches, go to an urgent care for a fifth the price, but people who aren't incentivized to think about cost, don't. This has been born out in study after study. Why do medicare/medicaid patients just *piss* away resources? Largely because they have no cost share associated, they just get to endlessly consume without consideration.

Why was healthcare cheap in the 60's and 70's? There was no intervention, that's why. You got cancer? They either cut it out (if they could find it) and you got better, or you died. Bad heart? You died. Stroke? Potatohead or dead. Broken legs and trauma injuries are relatively cheap to treat, especially back then. A first year intern can set a bone and cast it.
 
Not this shit again… for-profit healthcare systems were never the problem, the 3rd party in the room always was. Be it private insurance or the government or some terrible combination of the two people did not start going bankrupt over heart surgery until a 3rd party (or two) figured out a way to insert vulture capitalism into the mix.

If you outright socialize healthcare then there is every incentive for everyone to use it at the expense of everyone, meaning costs go up until the point that services goes down and/or restrictions are implemented.
Businesses do what they do but the guilty is really the government who allows the insurance companies to consistently raise it's rates, and the same with hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and pretty everything connected to the medical industry. Both parties are at fault and the political contributions pour into each of them. The prices got worse through the years with government action and since 1965 it really got ahead of the rate of inflation. Too much regulation keeps the supply demand curve favoring the business and not the client.
 
Capitalism can provide efficiency but is not efficient with the way the U.S. healthcare billing and payment system is set up; some things do well on a capitalistic platform, some on a combination of capitalism and socialism, but neither work well on American healthcare. There is a laundry list a mile long describing the many shortcomings and excessive costs which have been clearly presented time and time again, so no need to reiterate.

Spending like drunken sailors for our treatment (as opposed to prevention) style of healthcare is a direct result of capitalism and profit. Denial does not save any of us one cent, and only keeps the upward spiraling costs alive and healthy (unlike the patient). More procedures, exams, and surgeries driven by insurance policies and requirements creates greater profit for Insurance companies, so a radical breast removal and follow-up chemo or radiation therapy puts more money in their pockets than an annual mammogram. If the symptom driven cancer discovery goes metastatic, all the better for insurance companies!

Next time you have a hospital procedure ask for an itemized bill as submitted to insurance. Chances are you couldn't pay for it with years of gross income. Up through the 1960's and 1970's, a middle-income family could get by paying their own bills without insurance; my family did it. But now, it would bankrupt most anyone if they had to fork over the ca$h for even an ER visit just to get a cut stitched up. Its just plain wrong...
It is why I believe we should solve simple poverty through equal protection of the laws in order to get this, scale economy: All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.
 
Why do medicare/medicaid patients just *piss* away resources? Largely because they have no cost share associated, they just get to endlessly consume without consideration.

Oh my....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

:LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
The problem is that our healthcare system is the furthest thing from capitalistic. The vast majority of customers have dictated pricing through government agencies, all at forced losses. Secondarily to that, as you illustrated, people use the ED for things it isn't meant for. You don't need to go to the ED for a cut that needs a few stitches, go to an urgent care for a fifth the price, but people who aren't incentivized to think about cost, don't. This has been born out in study after study. Why do medicare/medicaid patients just *piss* away resources? Largely because they have no cost share associated, they just get to endlessly consume without consideration.

Why was healthcare cheap in the 60's and 70's? There was no intervention, that's why. You got cancer? They either cut it out (if they could find it) and you got better, or you died. Bad heart? You died. Stroke? Potatohead or dead. Broken legs and trauma injuries are relatively cheap to treat, especially back then. A first year intern can set a bone and cast it.
I'm retired from the healthcare industry and worked in several hospitals and clinics both in Radiology and Labs from the early 70's on; your oversimplification of mid-20th century healthcare is grossly inaccurate. I also did ICD-equivalent billing when Insurance companies first started their power and money grab; it was unbelievable how fast and far bills increased. Everything that went through insurance was inflated from what private payers were charged. They managed to get rid of private pay altogether, and isolated the patients from ever seeing a bill other than the co-pay. It's just plain wrong...
 
I'm retired from the healthcare industry and worked in several hospitals and clinics both in Radiology and Labs from the early 70's on; your oversimplification of mid-20th century healthcare is grossly inaccurate. I also did ICD-equivalent billing when Insurance companies first started their power and money grab; it was unbelievable how fast and far bills increased. Everything that went through insurance was inflated from what private payers were charged. They managed to get rid of private pay altogether, and isolated the patients from ever seeing a bill other than the co-pay. It's just plain wrong...

I am actively involved in healthcare, on several boards of regional medical centers, and a career in PE for healthcare.

The reason the insurance billing exploded was becuase you had a larger and larger number of patients on government healthcare and those payments starting to decrease in a relative sense. The money had to come from somewhere, so it came from private insurance/pay. Look at hospitals financial statements. You think they are having a good time? The best hospitals out there are running single digit net margins. The vast majority are -2 to +2% margins.

I will give you a great example. Look at cranial aneurysm clipping. In the early 80's the medicare professional reimbursement alone for that procedure was ~18k. Today, unadjusted for inflation, it is ~$1k. How many imaging studies got done in the 70's? 1% of today? What was the % of healthcare spend on joint replacements and onco? 1%? These things have exploded.
 
The problem is that our healthcare system is the furthest thing from capitalistic. The vast majority of customers have dictated pricing through government agencies, all at forced losses. Secondarily to that, as you illustrated, people use the ED for things it isn't meant for. You don't need to go to the ED for a cut that needs a few stitches, go to an urgent care for a fifth the price, but people who aren't incentivized to think about cost, don't. This has been born out in study after study. Why do medicare/medicaid patients just *piss* away resources? Largely because they have no cost share associated, they just get to endlessly consume without consideration.

Well, you were almost right.

The problem isn't someone going to an ER to get a cut stitched because they aren't incentivized to consider cost...its that the urgent care you suggested they go to can deny service if they don't have insurance. The ER can't. That is the most common reason people do that.....because they don't have insurance, or they don't have sufficient insurance to cover the cost of the visit. Sure, the ER is gonna simply pass that cost on to the rest of the patients, but think of it from the point of view of the cut victim....to them, it doesn't matter if the cost gets passed on, what matters is that the cut is dealt with and isn't going to cost them the arm to potential infection down the road.

Why was healthcare cheap in the 60's and 70's? There was no intervention, that's why. You got cancer? They either cut it out (if they could find it) and you got better, or you died. Bad heart? You died. Stroke? Potatohead or dead. Broken legs and trauma injuries are relatively cheap to treat, especially back then. A first year intern can set a bone and cast it.

That same first year intern can still do so....except it costs 50 times more to do so now than it did then. Care to take a stab at where that increased cost came from...and no, it isn't insurance or anything else. Its that for profit doctors are paying so much more for education and trying to recoup it all in the same amount of time docs in the past paid thiers off.

That said, way to basically advocate for the idea that ability to pay excessive prices should dictate whether or not you deserve to live.
 
Well, you were almost right.

The problem isn't someone going to an ER to get a cut stitched because they aren't incentivized to consider cost...its that the urgent care you suggested they go to can deny service if they don't have insurance. The ER can't. That is the most common reason people do that.....because they don't have insurance, or they don't have sufficient insurance to cover the cost of the visit. Sure, the ER is gonna simply pass that cost on to the rest of the patients, but think of it from the point of view of the cut victim....to them, it doesn't matter if the cost gets passed on, what matters is that the cut is dealt with and isn't going to cost them the arm to potential infection down the road.

Everyone who wants insurance pretty much has it as this point. Almost 70% of the nation is now on direct government healthcare, with another portion on quasi-government care via the exchange. Look at the ED, what you will generally find is people who don't care about what the bill is because someone else is paying for it. There was an Oregon study done on this very topic, under the idea that if you gave people unlimited free care they wouldn't abuse the ED as much, turns out the opposite was true.

That same first year intern can still do so....except it costs 50 times more to do so now than it did then. Care to take a stab at where that increased cost came from...and no, it isn't insurance or anything else. Its that for profit doctors are paying so much more for education and trying to recoup it all in the same amount of time docs in the past paid thiers off.

That said, way to basically advocate for the idea that ability to pay excessive prices should dictate whether or not you deserve to live.

100% incorrect.

First off, physicians can very easily get their debt paid for by someone else, extremely easily.

Second off, the vast majority of physicians, particularly new ones are not self employed. They don't see another nickel no matter how many codes the run, in other words they have no profit motivation.

Third, it's amazing that you think physicians can set prices. Again, the overwhelming majority of patients are government insured with *dictated* pricing, which is almost always at a *loss*, not a profit.
 
Everyone who wants insurance pretty much has it as this point. Almost 70% of the nation is now on direct government healthcare, with another portion on quasi-government care via the exchange. Look at the ED, what you will generally find is people who don't care about what the bill is because someone else is paying for it. There was an Oregon study done on this very topic, under the idea that if you gave people unlimited free care they wouldn't abuse the ED as much, turns out the opposite was true.

Look, if you want to make the argument that old habits die hard, I would agree. You are talking about a populace that had been trained for decades that the ER was thier best choice to get care, for the very reasons that I provided earlier. To think that they would simply start thinking that urgent cares were the best course of action was misplaced....not to mention that there are a lot of these urgent cares that still only take government insurance for certain things, so one can't simply walk in and expect the same level of care they can from an ER.

100% incorrect.

First off, physicians can very easily get their debt paid for by someone else, extremely easily.

Then why was there a thread here not long ago about the poor poor doctors who spend some much time and money getting educated to do the job who can't pay back the loans because they aren't making enough?

Second off, the vast majority of physicians, particularly new ones are not self employed. They don't see another nickel no matter how many codes the run, in other words they have no profit motivation.

Who said anything about "another nickel"? Its the nickels they are currently charging for services that we are disputing here. There are plenty of nickels being taken in, since a vast majority of for profit health entities are making money hand over fist. If the docs aren't being paid by said entities, then the problem is on that, not what is being charged for services.

Third, it's amazing that you think physicians can set prices. Again, the overwhelming majority of patients are government insured with *dictated* pricing, which is almost always at a *loss*, not a profit.

Bull.

I can point to one entity that turned a decent bit more profit last year than the year before, and they attribute it to adding Medicare Advantage customers to the roles. They aren't the only ones, but I'm not in the habit of walls of text. UnitedHealth Group disproves your bullshit, and as I pointed out, they are but one company making more money because of government covered people than they were before.

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.c...up-earned-173b-2021-according-earnings-report
 
Look, if you want to make the argument that old habits die hard, I would agree. You are talking about a populace that had been trained for decades that the ER was thier best choice to get care, for the very reasons that I provided earlier. To think that they would simply start thinking that urgent cares were the best course of action was misplaced....not to mention that there are a lot of these urgent cares that still only take government insurance for certain things, so one can't simply walk in and expect the same level of care they can from an ER.

I never said they were there for the same level of care as an ED. However the example you provided they would be sufficient. If you have a complex injury or condition then yes, you need an ED. More to my point, the vast majority of patients in the US don't care. If they go to the ED, Urgent Care, or Oregon Trail it, they are all going to cost them the same, zero. The only people who actually care about this are those with private insurance. If I got to the ED it costs me a lot more money than Urgent Care or a physicians office, I have motivation to think before I get in the car. The person on medicare, medicaid, or exchange? Not so much.


Then why was there a thread here not long ago about the poor poor doctors who spend some much time and money getting educated to do the job who can't pay back the loans because they aren't making enough?

Take that up with the OP there, it is inaccurate. Again, a career working in and around healthcare. I have watched, and helped, hundreds of physicians get their loans paid off by someone else through a variety of programs.

Who said anything about "another nickel"? Its the nickels they are currently charging for services that we are disputing here. There are plenty of nickels being taken in, since a vast majority of for profit health entities are making money hand over fist. If the docs aren't being paid by said entities, then the problem is on that, not what is being charged for services.

Your implication is that physicians are setting prices and/or providing services to enrich themselves. Inaccurate.


Bull.

I can point to one entity that turned a decent bit more profit last year than the year before, and they attribute it to adding Medicare Advantage customers to the roles. They aren't the only ones, but I'm not in the habit of walls of text. UnitedHealth Group disproves your bullshit, and as I pointed out, they are but one company making more money because of government covered people than they were before.

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.c...up-earned-173b-2021-according-earnings-report

You seem to struggle with understanding how these businesses are working.

First, understand that you are referring to a company that had ~$225B in gross revenue and $12B in net profits. That is a ~5.6% net profit rate. That's awful, in any business. Public utilities have margins far higher than that.

Second, I don't think you understand why Medicare Advantage plays into this. UnitedHealth is making money by being more efficient than CMS by taking a set capitation rate per patient from the federales and then spending less than that on care for them through a variety of methods. Basically the federal government is giving them the $10/per head they would spend and UNH is managed to do it for $9.20/head. This is an *insurance* function, not a function of the *provision* of care.

Lastly, the point I am making is that when a medicare patient receives a service at a doctors office, facility, or hospital the reimbursement tends to average 94-96% of the *cost* of that care, far less in private practices. I am not sure how old you are, but you certainly know older folks. Ask them how easy it is to find a physician who is accepting new medicare patients. It just doesn't happen, why do you think that is? In my area (Nashville) a level 4 medicare visit in a private practice reimburses somewhere around $85. That's $85 for ~40 minutes of time with a physician. There is absolutely no way that doctor isn't losing money on that. Compare that to BCBS for the same code, you are looking at more than double that number.

Not trying to be a jerk, but you are conflating a couple issues and this is solidly my wheelhouse.
 
...it is why upgrading infrastructure to the latest technologies can matter. We need to strive for better results at lower cost in modern economic times.
 
Neat. You have a tweet about a fast food chain with a few dozen employees being posted by a guy who blew up his own business with his own ideas of equality.
Dan's business is running just fine. With a $70,000 minimum wage.
I have BLS data:

Doesn't address the fact that they should pay their workers more and their CEOs less.
 
What we need is a hybrid system. A little socialism to dispense healthcare, but capitalism to keep it efficient. Neither side is correct alone.
 
Dan's business is running just fine. With a $70,000 minimum wage.

Doesn't address the fact that they should pay their workers more and their CEOs less.


It's a 110 employee company, when he instituted his minimum wage experiment he also lost the majority of his top paid employees as their pay/bonuses had to be reduced in order to pay for the increase in lower end base.

What is your basis for workers shoud be paid more and CEOs less? Just gut feeling? Fairness? I would point out that the median household income in the US is the highest of any major economy in the world.
 
It's a 110 employee company, when he instituted his minimum wage experiment he also lost the majority of his top paid employees as their pay/bonuses had to be reduced in order to pay for the increase in lower end base.

What is your basis for workers shoud be paid more and CEOs less? Just gut feeling? Fairness? I would point out that the median household income in the US is the highest of any major economy in the world.
Yeah.. gonna need a citation to your claims about Dan lowering pay and top employees leaving.

This is the basis for me saying CEOs need a pay it and give the workers a raise.

Gravity payments has 209 employees.


Christ man do you say anything that is true?
 
Last edited:
Dan's business is running just fine. With a $70,000 minimum wage.

Doesn't address the fact that they should pay their workers more and their CEOs less.
Solving simple poverty with existing legal and physical infrastructure is all that really matters under Capitalism.
 
Yeah.. gonna need a citation to your claims about Dan lowering pay and top employees leaving.

This is the basis for me saying CEOs need a pay it and give the workers a raise.

Gravity payments has 209 employees.


Christ man do you say anything that is true?



ERISA has them listed at 110 employeees on their 2020 filing.

This sort of policy is great for underperformers with lower marketability skillsets, not so good when the compensation pool is diluted for the top earners with real skills. That's what happened, top talent left over comp.
 

ERISA has them listed at 110 employeees on their 2020 filing.

This sort of policy is great for underperformers with lower marketability skillsets, not so good when the compensation pool is diluted for the top earners with real skills. That's what happened, top talent left over comp.
Well it's 2022 now and it looks like the company is so successful that it's almost doubled staff in just 2 years. Further debunking your attempts to trash it as unsuccessful.

Also noticed you still haven't backed up your claim that Dan reduced wages of top performers who then walked. Why haven't you?
 
Well it's 2022 now and it looks like the company is so successful that it's almost doubled staff in just 2 years. Further debunking your attempts to trash it as unsuccessful.
Also noticed you still haven't backed up your claim that Dan reduced wages of top performers who then walked. Why haven't you?

Your "source" of doubling headcount is rather odd. ERISA is a public filing. Maybe they doubled in two years, maybe not, but until you give me something resembling a real source then sorry, but no dice.

Read the article I linked, there are others similar. Companies tend to have certain allocations to compensation, if you apportion more of that on the bottom side it reduces the top side, that is precisely what happened here. Hell, Dan Price is apparently had to liquidate all his personal holdings just to keep the company afloat. Not exactly a great business model. But hey, if you want to replicate it, by all means go ahead.[/QUOTE]
 
Your "source" of doubling headcount is rather odd. ERISA is a public filing. Maybe they doubled in two years, maybe not, but until you give me something resembling a real source then sorry, but no dice.

Read the article I linked, there are others similar. Companies tend to have certain allocations to compensation, if you apportion more of that on the bottom side it reduces the top side, that is precisely what happened here. Hell, Dan Price is apparently had to liquidate all his personal holdings just to keep the company afloat. Not exactly a great business model. But hey, if you want to replicate it, by all means go ahead.

Lol

You made all sorts of lies about the company, provided one link that was from a story from 2015 and hidden behind a paywall. So you refused to back any of your claims up and are now insisting that I provide even more sources than I already have for you?

Yeah... Sea lion trolling rejected.
 
Back
Top Bottom