Regarding Health Care Reform - Page 2

On September 19 2009 04:45 Saddened Izzy wrote:
Wow uiCk way to try to make yourself seem more competent by correcting me.

Guess what I will actually type. I have a speech to text program and using speech to text programs are always lacking in perfection. It is interesting you point out cancer because treatment time is very important. So It might take some time is actually very costly to your own health.

On September 19 2009 04:45 Saddened Izzy wrote:
Wow uiCk way to try to make yourself seem more competent by correcting me.

Guess what I will actually type. I have a speech to text program and using speech to text programs are always lacking in perfection. It is interesting you point out cancer because treatment time is very important. So It might take some time is actually very costly to your own health.

On September 19 2009 05:02 Saddened Izzy wrote:
the argument that government involvement is inherently faulty is pretty much true.

On September 19 2009 04:55 Louder wrote:
Insurance companies deny 1 in 5 prescriptions.

Insurance CEOs average $34,000,000 per year salary.

They actively drop coverage on people who use it / need it most.

Many have, in their corporate mission, statements about how denial of care is central to profit.

The notion that the market will right all is wrong, and history proves as much. Look back to working conditions during the industrial revolution, for example. The guys "creating jobs" and "powering the economy" were doing so by brutal mistreatment of employees, including children. But they did turn a profit! The insurance companies of today are the same

On September 19 2009 05:12 Louder wrote:


Evidence?

On September 19 2009 05:22 uiCk wrote:
infrastructure is major issue with many gouverments all over the world, has absolutly nothing to do with health care.

On September 19 2009 05:23 Saddened Izzy wrote:

But it shows how the American government does think long term. And health care is long term =p America used to have the world best in everything infrastructure it what made it so freaking great. It's to make a point that overall can't totally trust the American government to pull though. which if you read the earlier post i didn't mean i was against the American government giving a public option it just meant my belief was that it was going to be a very bumpy start.

On September 19 2009 06:13 Caller wrote:
In fact, if you were to increase the supply of doctors (by for instance making it easier, more affordable, and more acceptance into medical school), you would drive this cost down further.

On September 19 2009 06:13 Caller wrote:
Everybody blames the market for being inefficient in this case.

That is correct. Insurance is an example of market failure.

However, their rationale for what to do is all wrong.

The problem here is this:
a) insurers are taking on a risk whenever they take on a new person in their insurance plan.
b) as such, they raise rates to compensate for high risks, because they are never 100% sure person X is going to get cancer or not, even if he gets a checkup and everything.
c) as a result, healthy people like person Y are not going to have a strong incentive to get insurance because what's the point if you're healthy? They would purchase insurance either later on, when they are more at risk, or when the price is lower.
d) As a result, with a less healthy risk pool, insurance companies raise rates again, driving more people out of the market because it exceeds their risk and needs.
e) in the end, you have a lot of "low quality" consumers, i.e. sick people. If the insurance company is to stay liquid, let alone afloat, it must control costs somehow.
f) it does so by increasing costs of insurance, as well as by cutting the amount that they pay to doctors. Doctors are forced to subscribe to insurance plans to attract patients, and thus they charge uninsured people way more than insured people (and i'm not talking about the copay, i'm talking about the cost of a procedure, total. The cost for an insured person is 300$, and the insurance company pays another 300$ for a certain procedure that one of my family recently undertook. The cost for an uninsured person is $10,000.)
g) As a result, uninsured people cannot get healthcare, because it is way too expensive for them to do so. And low income families tend to have worse health outcomes than upper class families, due to the fact that they eat more unhealthy foods, and do not see doctors as much as they would like, due to the high costs. Therefore, the more subtle diseases that cost much more to treat end up emerging among them in higher numbers. When they then try to get insurance, they are obviously refused, because it is equivalent to the insurance company taking on debt.

And here is the problem. It's not "greed" or any of that bullcrap that people say when they come from the left. The left is right, for the wrong reasons, and the right is wrong, for the right reasons. The answer isn't a government takeover of healthcare, because Medicare is a huge reason why healthcare costs are so high, and Medicare is a large part of government healthcare. Since Medicare tends to care for all seniors, and often these seniors require expensive procedures (due to their age), the average expenditure for Medicare persons is quite high. As a result, since Medicare has no incentive to cut costs, and doctors have an incentive to raise costs (because of private insurers), doctors charge Medicare high amounts of money, which is causing the system to become expensive and unstable. Leaving them to the market of insurance, however, is equally bad, as again it would be the market failure that I have described above.

The solution is to make no insurance a viable alternative to insurance. The initial purpose of insurance was to supplement high healthcare costs, such as chemotherapy and the like-it wasn't to subsidize a trip to the doctor for a checkup or to get shots or whatever. The market price for a checkup among doctors who refuse to take insurance is quite low-around $30, which is a far cry from the hundreds that are charged to an insurance company. In fact, if you were to increase the supply of doctors (by for instance making it easier, more affordable, and more acceptance into medical school), you would drive this cost down further. And a checkup can help to prevent much more expensive problems from being present in the future. Detecting a cancer right when it starts is much, much cheaper than fighting it when its metastasizing all across the body and when you have symptoms. Right now, only insured people tend to go for a checkup. Make it so uninsured people can go for a checkup, and you'll wipe out those who go to the Emergency room and costs thousands for a minor problem. You'll allow the private market to drive down costs by providing the right incentives. You restore power back into the hands of the doctors, and you also cause the insurance companies to drive down costs to compete with the policies of those without insurance. For expensive procedures, that's what insurance should be used for. You don't get car insurance (aside from the legal ramifications) because you want to get a tune up. You use it in case some jackass totals your car. You don't get house insurance because you want to change the roof. You get it in case some jackass burns down your house. Why should health insurance be any different?