Red States and healthcare

[Glitch]

Doesn't matter. You still benefit from their effects.
You have better available healthcare..because of Medicare.
You enjoy a better economy due to Medicare and social security.
Etc.

Nope. Not a democrat..just an educated and intelligent republican.

You are seriously mistaken. Healthcare is considerably more expensive and the medical profession is considerably more corrupt, thanks to government's illegal interference into our healthcare. Social Security also accounts for 36% of the entire federal budget, and is responsible for illegally increasing my taxes requiring me to pay more for an illegal program that I will never use.

There are no other political parties that strongly advocate violating the law at ever opportunity, just like you. So you must be a Democrat. Naturally, I expect all Democrats to intentionally lie since they lack all honor.

 

[jaeger19]

You are seriously mistaken. Healthcare is considerably more expensive and the medical profession is considerably more corrupt, thanks to government's illegal interference into our healthcare. Social Security also accounts for 36% of the entire federal budget, and is responsible for illegally increasing my taxes requiring me to pay more for an illegal program that I will never use.

There are no other political parties that strongly advocate violating the law at ever opportunity, just like you. So you must be a Democrat. Naturally, I expect all Democrats to intentionally lie since they lack all honor.

Pooh.

I suppose you think it's profitable for a health insurance company to provide coverage for a 65 year old man with atherosclerosis?.
Of course not ..which is why medicare was created.
Now imagine what would the us be like without Medicare?
Well first all.. healthcare is a huge part of our gross national product.
It means tons of high paying jobs..technology etc into the economy.
That's all because of medicare..which pairs a customer who needs healthcare..with the means to pay for it.
Without Medicare.. as people age tgey become infirm quicker..more dependent on others which means younger children have to leave the workforce to care for them.
Not as big of a deal when you are an agrarian society.
But if you want to be an industrialized powerhouse of a nation? You need the nuclear family and skilled workers who don't need to take care of grandpa.

And that's just Medicare.

It's been a huge positive investment in this country.

 

[Glitch]

Pooh.

I suppose you think it's profitable for a health insurance company to provide coverage for a 65 year old man with atherosclerosis?.
Of course not ..which is why medicare was created.
Now imagine what would the us be like without Medicare?
Well first all.. healthcare is a huge part of our gross national product.
It means tons of high paying jobs..technology etc into the economy.
That's all because of medicare..which pairs a customer who needs healthcare..with the means to pay for it.
Without Medicare.. as people age tgey become infirm quicker..more dependent on others which means younger children have to leave the workforce to care for them.
Not as big of a deal when you are an agrarian society.
But if you want to be an industrialized powerhouse of a nation? You need the nuclear family and skilled workers who don't need to take care of grandpa.

And that's just Medicare.

It's been a huge positive investment in this country.

Since the illegal creation of MediCare/MedicAid health insurance has skyrocketed because government only pays pennies on the dollar. Which means the rest of us have to pick up the additional costs, and that is reflected in the skyrocketing insurance premiums. Take the federal government out of healthcare, and restore it back to a constitutional government instead of a criminal one, insurance rates would plummet because they are no longer covering what government refuses to pay.

MediCare/MedicAid accounts for 23% of the federal budget, more than what we spend on Defense. Combined with Social Security, that is a total of 56% of the federal spending. More than half the federal budget is illegal. You fully support these crimes, but still want to pretend that you are not a Democrat.

 

[jaeger19]

Since the illegal creation of MediCare/MedicAid health insurance has skyrocketed because government only pays pennies on the dollar. Which means the rest of us have to pick up the additional costs, and that is reflected in the skyrocketing insurance premiums. Take the federal government out of healthcare, and restore it back to a constitutional government instead of a criminal one, insurance rates would plummet because they are no longer covering what government refuses to pay.

MediCare/MedicAid accounts for 23% of the federal budget, more than what we spend on Defense. Combined with Social Security, that is a total of 56% of the federal spending. More than half the federal budget is illegal. You fully support these crimes, but still want to pretend that you are not a Democrat.

Yeah no.
Without medicare?? The hospitals and medical systems we have..the technology..the infrastructure would not exist.
There simply is not enough demand for healthcare in the 18 to 65 demographic.

That spending by the way...goes right back into the economy . Healthcare represents good paying ..steady jobs.

 

[Mircea]

Nope. No surrender.
Just so much more knowledgeable about the healthcare system.
For example in your grocery example...
Does the grocery store BY LAW have to give produce and foodstuffs to its customers regardless of their ability to pay?
Cuz hospitals do.

That's not entirely true. By law, they're only required to stabilize life-threatening conditions.

You also ignore the fact that when the American Hospital Association pressured State legislatures to allow them to avoid having to comply with State insurance regulations and operate as monopolies, they did so under the guise that the free healthcare provided to low-income patients would offset any negative consequences of monopoly.

That begs the question, why do hospitals complain that they do have to provide free healthcare to low-income patients?

That's just two of so many ignorant things in your post.

Court cases are not "ignorant things" and you failed to address the fact that everyone is over-charged for medical services at hospitals.

 

[jaeger19]

That's not entirely true. By law, they're only required to stabilize life-threatening conditions.

You also ignore the fact that when the American Hospital Association pressured State legislatures to allow them to avoid having to comply with State insurance regulations and operate as monopolies, they did so under the guise that the free healthcare provided to low-income patients would offset any negative consequences of monopoly.

That begs the question, why do hospitals complain that they do have to provide free healthcare to low-income patients?


Court cases are not "ignorant things" and you failed to address the fact that everyone is over-charged for medical services at hospitals.

But it is true. Not only does the medical system have to stabilize for life threatening issues ( which by the way tend to be the most expensive..). The hospital also has to maintain equipment for people even though it's used very rarely.( i.e. not cost effective)
And it cannot discharge a patient to an unsafe environment ( unless they leave by choice ) and consequently hospitals will have to eat the costs of non paying clients they cannot find a place willing to take them.

Face it..the medical system is in no way analogous to the supermarket as you tried to claim.

As far as hospitals and poor?

One of the reasons that hospitals need a monopoly is to mitigate tge effects of low or no reimbursement.
When there is not enough good paying clients to keep three hospitals afloat..the hospitals must merge to survive.

Monopolizatoon is a directly caused by the declining reimbursement propolgated by the state.

 

[Mircea]

But it is true. Not only does the medical system have to stabilize for life threatening issues ( which by the way tend to be the most expensive..). The hospital also has to maintain equipment for people even though it's used very rarely.( i.e. not cost effective)
And it cannot discharge a patient to an unsafe environment ( unless they leave by choice ) and consequently hospitals will have to eat the costs of non paying clients they cannot find a place willing to take them.

That's a small percentage of patients, not every patient.

Face it..the medical system is in no way analogous to the supermarket as you tried to claim.

Notwithstanding that you're lacking in imagination, imagine going to buy anything and not having a clue about the price until after you buy it and then finding out other people paid more or less than you did for no apparent reason.

A friend's wife was in hospital for child-birth and later when they got the bill they had been charged $60 for two Tylenol tablets. They were at Good Samaritan and literally one block away was a UDF where he could have bought 10 bottles of 100 count Tylenol tablets for $60. Then later a friend of his wife's said they were charged $46 for two Tylenol tablets so, yes, they were quite infuriated.

We'll wait while you justify those prices.

As far as hospitals and poor?

One of the reasons that hospitals need a monopoly is to mitigate tge effects of low or no reimbursement.
When there is not enough good paying clients to keep three hospitals afloat..the hospitals must merge to survive.

Then end hospitals. There is no logical reason for hospitals to exist. Again, the former German Minister of Health stomps on your argument:

Polyclinics—clusters of general practitioners who work together to form more specialized primary care centers—were used extensively and quite successfully in the former German Democratic Republic.However, many politicians in West Germany initially disliked the idea of polyclinics because they associated them with communist ideology. It took a while for many people to understand that polyclinics offer significant advantages with regard to communication, coordination, and cooperation.

Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs: An interview with Franz Knieps pp 30-31

With the exception of Britain, Spain, and Portugal, the rest of the world got rid of hospitals decades ago because they are the worst method of healthcare delivery and the most costly method of healthcare delivery.

It ain't rocket science.

You will not save one penny with a universal system if you insist on using the antiquated obsolete Hospital Model.

Like the rest of the world who abandoned the Hospital Model and switched to the Clinic/Policlinic Model and saves money because they do, you must do the same.

Monopolizatoon is a directly caused by the declining reimbursement propolgated by the state.

That is factually incorrect. Hospitals became monopolies in the 1930's with the passage of "enabling laws" lobbied by the American Hospital Association.

NY Laws 1934, c. 595, adding Article 14, §§452-461, to the New York Insurance Law. The 1939 legislature adopted a new codification of the Insurance Law, effective June 15, 1939, in which Article DC-C, §§250-259, was substituted for Article 14, broadened to include non-profit medical indemnity corporations, and amended in other respects.
Alabama: Acts 1935, act no. 544, amended. Acts 1936 (Ext. Scss.) act no.169, Acts, 1939;
California: Stat. 1935, c 386, amended, Stat. 1937, c. 881, Stat. 1939, A. B. 1712;
Illinois:Rev. Stat. (1937) §§551-562;
Mississippi: Laws 1936, c 177;
Georgia: Laws 1937, no. 379, p. 690;
Maryland: Laws 1937, c. 224;
Massachusetts: Annotated Laws (1938 Supp.) c 176A;
Pennsylvania: Stat. Ann. (Purdon, 1938) tit. 15, a 49A, §§2851-1301—2851-1309;
Kentucky: Acts 1938, c. 23;
New Jersey: Laws 1938, c. 366;
Connecticut: Laws 1939, S. B. 51;
District of Columbia: S. B. 497, 76th Cong. 1st Scss.(1939);
Iowa: Laws 1939, c. 222;
Maine: Laws 1939, c. 149;
Michigan: Laws 1939, H. B. 145;
New Hampshire: Laws 1939, H. B. 232;
New Mexico: Laws 1939, c. 66;
Ohio: Laws- 1939, S. B. 181;
Rhode Island: Laws 1939, c. 719;
South Carolina: Acts 1939, H. B. 845;
Texas: Laws 1939, Subst. H. B. 191;
Vermont: Laws 1939;
Wisconsin: Laws 1939, S. B. 288.

Note: The Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin acts were passed in 1939 after bills had been defeated in 1937.

 

[jaeger19]

That's a small percentage of patients, not every patient.


Notwithstanding that you're lacking in imagination, imagine going to buy anything and not having a clue about the price until after you buy it and then finding out other people paid more or less than you did for no apparent reason.

A friend's wife was in hospital for child-birth and later when they got the bill they had been charged $60 for two Tylenol tablets. They were at Good Samaritan and literally one block away was a UDF where he could have bought 10 bottles of 100 count Tylenol tablets for $60. Then later a friend of his wife's said they were charged $46 for two Tylenol tablets so, yes, they were quite infuriated.

We'll wait while you justify those prices.



Then end hospitals. There is no logical reason for hospitals to exist. Again, the former German Minister of Health stomps on your argument:

Polyclinics—clusters of general practitioners who work together to form more specialized primary care centers—were used extensively and quite successfully in the former German Democratic Republic.However, many politicians in West Germany initially disliked the idea of polyclinics because they associated them with communist ideology. It took a while for many people to understand that polyclinics offer significant advantages with regard to communication, coordination, and cooperation.

Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs: An interview with Franz Knieps pp 30-31

With the exception of Britain, Spain, and Portugal, the rest of the world got rid of hospitals decades ago because they are the worst method of healthcare delivery and the most costly method of healthcare delivery.

It ain't rocket science.

You will not save one penny with a universal system if you insist on using the antiquated obsolete Hospital Model.

Like the rest of the world who abandoned the Hospital Model and switched to the Clinic/Policlinic Model and saves money because they do, you must do the same.




That is factually incorrect. Hospitals became monopolies in the 1930's with the passage of "enabling laws" lobbied by the American Hospital Association.

NY Laws 1934, c. 595, adding Article 14, §§452-461, to the New York Insurance Law. The 1939 legislature adopted a new codification of the Insurance Law, effective June 15, 1939, in which Article DC-C, §§250-259, was substituted for Article 14, broadened to include non-profit medical indemnity corporations, and amended in other respects.
Alabama: Acts 1935, act no. 544, amended. Acts 1936 (Ext. Scss.) act no.169, Acts, 1939;
California: Stat. 1935, c 386, amended, Stat. 1937, c. 881, Stat. 1939, A. B. 1712;
Illinois:Rev. Stat. (1937) §§551-562;
Mississippi: Laws 1936, c 177;
Georgia: Laws 1937, no. 379, p. 690;
Maryland: Laws 1937, c. 224;
Massachusetts: Annotated Laws (1938 Supp.) c 176A;
Pennsylvania: Stat. Ann. (Purdon, 1938) tit. 15, a 49A, §§2851-1301—2851-1309;
Kentucky: Acts 1938, c. 23;

1. But that small percentage of patients make up a large cost.
2. It has nothing to do with lack of imagination. It has to do with understanding healthcare.
First of YOU didn't pay much if anything. YOUR insurance company paid and it was based on what THEY negotiated with the hospital.. or simply demanded the hospital accept.
Imagine that what the grocery store bills doesn't matter. Instead a third party buys your food for you and decides what it's going to pay the grocery store.
Those people didn't pay 60 dollars for Tylenol.
Their insurance demanded a bill despite the fact that what they actually paid had nothing to do with the bill..but instead had to do with what the insurance company ALLOWED for the diagnostic group she was in. The hospital could have charged 10000 dollars for two Tylenol and it wouldn't have mattered one dang bit.

3. Hospital arent ended in any country.
.
Germany's
Heidelberg University Hospital ranked 13th among the "World's Best Hospitals" 2023.

Heidelberg University Hospital among the "World's Best Hospitals" in 2023 - Heidelberg University Hospital

Heidelberg University Hospital ranks among the "WORLD'S BEST HOSPITALS" for the fifth year in row

www.heidelberg-university-hospital.com

Canada "
Below, we’ve compiled a list of the top 10 largest Canadian hospitals by number of beds.

Top 10 largest Canadian hospitals

We created a list of the top 10 largest hospitals in Canada.

www.definitivehc.com

Shall I go on?

4. Yeah..I checked some of your case law. None of it made hospitals monopolies.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

However please continue as it's an excellent opportunity to educate you and others.

 

[Diomedes]

Nice.
And according to the cdc..5 red states have lower scores than NY state.

So...pretty much debunks the premise that red states have worse homicides.
Some do..some don't.

And if we were to examine those " red states" on your list..I'd bet dollars to donuts many of tge areas within them that have higher homicide...tend to be blue areas.
Like Jackson Mississippi...

Cities need to be compared to cities with a similar population. Comparing the crime rate of a town with 300 residents to the crime rate of NYC is ridiculous.