Why our for profit health care system does not work!

[JustHanging]

I agree with you on those problems but universal healthcare will make those problems worse not better

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You think your country is that full of dumbasses? Granted, you did elect Trump to represent you, an idiot or moron, depending on who you talk to. But still.

 

[imagep]

What you are saying is called the one payer system. That is, you have Government paying the way and private companies providing the service.

Not necessarally. We need competition between health care providers, the best way to insure that they compete on price is when the customer pays the cost, not a third party. I would call gasoline sales a "single payer" system because our car insurance does't cover a penny of gasoline.

What I would propose is that their is a reasonable but hefty portion of the cost of health care that individuals would have to pay directly, and that insurance only kicks in significantly when the cost of care is outside of the typical family's ability to pay. The vast majority of families can pay for a tank of gas (maybe $40), or a family cell phone bill of $100 a month, or a tv/internet bill of $50-$150 a month. I don't think that having each insured person to cover the first $100 per visit out of pocket is unreasonable. Then maybe the insurance covers 25% of the cost between $100 and $1,000, then 50% between $1000 and $5000, and 75% from $5k to $25k, and 90% over $25k - of course those are just figures off the top of my head, maybe a little higher or a little less would be better. This would put enough financial pressure on individuals to bother to price shop, and thus tend to keep healthcare costs in check, the same way that most everything else in the free market is competitively priced.

 

[imagep]

How do you expect to have any money to fund R&D if you don't have any profit?

That's certainly a concern. I suppose it depends a lot on how we define "profit". Typically, when a company spends a lot of R and D, that's part of its operating expense and it is a deduction from gross revenue. So in a way, having a "non profit" healthcare system (which by the way I don't particularly advocate for) may increase R and D.

I'm more concerned about having a non-profit insurance system. Insurance companies don't really do R and D, they just try to make as much profit as possible. They add more than 20% to our national health care bill just from their profits and operating costs (which often include hundreds of millions of dollars for top executive salaries and bonuses).

 

[imagep]

Insurance companies are not trying to get the least amount of health care provided at the highest cost. They're trying to get necessary care provided at the lowest cost they can get providers to agree to, and to eliminate the provision of unnecessary care altogether.

Sort of. Truthfully, insurance companies like high prices because that allows them to justify jacking up their own price (and profit). It's an indirect and unintentional price collusion between insurance companies and medical care providers.

And providers are certainly not trying to provide the least amount of care, they're trying to provide the most amount of care, as much as they can possibly justify.

Absolutely!

Insurance companies are perhaps the only ones in the equation who have any real incentive to be continuously trying to control costs.

See answer above

Sick patients have zero desire to control cost or quantity of care. As long as they're "covered in full" for the rest of the year by whatever covers them, they don't care about cost.

So are we agreeing that this is a huge part of our problem?

That's true, and it's because we've abdicated the price control responsibility to insurance companies in the rates they negotiate with our providers, and in the utilization review they perform, and so forth. We pay insurance companies to do our price-controlling for us. Why? Because we've apparently decided that we should not have to pay for health care at the point of service in the first place. We expect the insurance company to step in.

The ACA was basically a step toward multi-payer universal health care. It is not working that wonderfully, and I believe that is largely due to how entrenched we are in an employer-sponsored insurance system for the nation's non-government-covered population, as well as a few glitches that are getting in the way of progress. Those glitches can be fixed. We know what they are and legislation has been introduced that would fix them.

Yup.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Well, you list a lot of hasty generalizations without bothering to explain why they actually exist, then propose government "do something about it." :roll:

What EXACTLY do you think government should do? Who EXACTLY is supposed to pay for whatever is done?

1. It takes the time of skilled research scientists to develop medicines, anti-virals, anti-bacterials, testing methodologies, and all the tools, machines, and other means of examining patients to support medical practitioners in rendering a valid diagnosis and treatment plan.

2. It takes YEARS of training to create a medical doctor or a medical researcher. That's not even talking about the education and training of those in medical support fields.

3. It takes many different types of manufacturing businesses to produce the medicines, tools, electronics, machinery, etc. necessary to treat patients. Then the technicians to maintain those gee-whiz machines.

4. Don't forget the Facilities (hospitals, clinics, etc.) for the care and treatment of patients have to be constructed and maintained.

Strangely, none of this simply falls from the sky like manna from heaven. It COSTS money.

Now people seeking to enter into any endeavor also typically seek to profit thereby in some way. They want all their time and commitment to be rewarded with more that just a smile (since that does not pay the rent, put food on the table, or clothes on their kids backs).

Then there is always the risk of injury or contagions from constant contact with those suffering some illness to contend with.

How do you motivate quality people to do such work if your only response is "give the government control." Just ask any Veteran who has ever dealt with the VA Medical system how well that works.

So instead of a general complaint, how about some hard facts and a clear outline of how you'd like this to work. Then a discussion might be had. :coffeepap:

And when they keep saying other nation's citizens pay less, they are not mentioning many of the issues that drive up the cost of healthcare in the US, such as frivoulous medical malpractice lawsuits and far too much government tinkering. Capitalism/competition works when it's allowed to work.The A.C.A. one size fits all approach and it's insanely stupid mandates blow up free market competition. The mandates basically created a captive customer base for policies the government decides the parameters of. No incentive to compete whatsoever.

 

[Greenbeard]

And when they keep saying other nation's citizens pay less, they are not mentioning many of the issues that drive up the cost of healthcare in the US, such as frivoulous medical malpractice lawsuits and far too much government tinkering. Capitalism/competition works when it's allowed to work.The A.C.A. one size fits all approach and it's insanely stupid mandates blow up free market competition. The mandates basically created a captive customer base for policies the government decides the parameters of. No incentive to compete whatsoever.

We don't have more "government tinkering" in the United States than in other countries.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thats why I don't support socialized health care. However, I do support socialized health insurance.

As long as it is insurance (covering the rare, unexpected and expensive events) and not just a level payment plan covering all routine maintenance costs.