How Massachusetts Voters Killed National Healthcare

Scenario A: You come up with a really cool invention (drug, electronic equipment, tool, etc.). Because of the demand for such a product, the industry will pay you $2 million a year. Would you choose to be paid $2 mil/year, or would you simply say that $40k/year is sufficient?

Scneario B: You spend 8 years of your life on your schooling to become a professional. You live off of Top Ramen and Spheggettios for the entire 8 years while virtually having no life. By the time you graduate, you're $350k in debt for medical tuition. Would you want to be paid $200k a year, or would $40k be enough - the same as those who hadn't sacrificed their life?

Sure, there's a lot of waste in the medical system. Sure, profits for some entities is crazy. There's certainly incentive for innovation and hard work. My only regret is that I didn't listen to my father on my career choices. #-o

 

Your points are very valid, and in the system we live in this is the standard. It is also what passes for business as usual in, not just health care system, but all other industries as well. The main difference with the healthcare industry though, is that it has something to do with peoples lives.

 

Arguably, for those who can afford it.

 

Tang in the 80's?


LMFAO!!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

For scenario B, you obviously opt to earn $200k, which is a fair return on your initial investment + intellect + talent + workload. But as luck would have it, in order to earn $200k, you're forced to go through a system that tacks on another 30%. So the cost of keeping you compensated just went up to $260k. In some cases, you are even forced to accept less compensation just so the system can avoid passing on even higher costs.

What many of us feel is that we find little justification for the existence of such a system as a profit-driven enterprise. There are a ton of administrators, executives, and investors who are making big bank on controlling our access to health care yet add no value other than to ensure the survival of the system.

 

And their own.


Effin A!

 

dirtvert-
The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue.

When that happens the politicians will find a way to stop the flow of dollars. The so-called reform legislation caves to big Pharma by stopping low-cost drugs from Canada.

It's also questionable how much health care for foreigners the Cubans can subsidize.

BTW (for ex) can you get internet in a Cuban hospital?

 

^^ you can get internet in cuba, but it crashes when castro starts to download porn. :lol:

 

Where are you pulling your +30% number from? The market will bear what the market will bear, there is no artificial +30% -- if a doctor makes 30% more, it is because he is good at what he does and merits it.

See, people want the best doctor but they want to pay the least amount possible. The doctor wants to make the most money he can. It is a simple case of supply and demand.

You want to lower the doctors price? Then you and your friends should find the crappiest doctor you can, go to that doctor, and let the market bring down the good doctor's price.

The point of the prior post was: what would you do if your current job offered you 30% more? Say no?

People are so intent on vilifying profits. They pull numbers out of their butts without any proof aside from the most recent Huffington Post/NYTimes article.

I think it is worthwhile point out that there are two ways for a government to get people to do something, such as provide medical services or develop new medical technologies: (1) coerce people (socialism -- i.e. tell them what they have to do, reduce individual liberties), and (2) incentivize people (capitalism - let people choose what they want to do and attempt to make the most money they can doing it -- increase personal liberties -- BTW, if you fail, the gov't won't be there to bail you out).

Coercion has historically been shown to be the less effective way to accomplish the goal. When you don't incentivize the workers, the workers aren't really motivated to do anything. Case in point - Soviet farmers who worked two hours a day and spent the rest of the day drinking vodka. On the other hand, when you let the workers control the amount of remuneration they take home based on their productivity, the society as a whole benefits because overall productivity is increased (more goods and services to choose from) and competition is increased (which lowers prices).

In the case of life sciences, we have all been the beneficiaries of this principle. Why do you think so much innovation in this field originates in the United States? (As a patent attorney I can assure you it does.) Because people in Europe are stupid? No, it is because we offer incentives.

For example, with patents, Europe has a prohibition for patenting things that are against the "morale public." So you can't patent methods of treatment, etc. The result: there is much less innovation in Europe because there is less incentive unless they bring their inventions to the United States. If we socialize, I guarantee you will see a marked slowdown in the production of new drugs and medical devices, simply because there is no incentive to develop them. That is bad for everybody.

This is all economics 101. Incidentally, costs aren't reduced by socializing medicine. Typically they increase because you have to take on higher risk patients who wouldn't otherwise be included in your insurance group. Moreover, the $$ out of your pocket is merely reallocated. Although your premiums are less, you have already paid a large portion of your premium in taxes.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

I got the point of your post. Evidently the point of mine was lost or garbled.

 

i don't think so. look at the chart on the last page. our healthcare costs are about twice as much as the countries with universal health care (including every other industrial country)--and we get less out of it. profits, salaries, and advertising suck billions out of our system.

and universal care saves more money in the long run because of preventive care. using the er as your primary care isn't very efficient.

this debate is futile, since the repubs have resisted/obstructed any meaningful reform, even before this week's erection. nothing's going to change for a long time, so i hope you like what you got.

 

I am trying to decide if the typo was intentional or not. :lol:

Also, before I buy into that chart (not saying I wouldn't) -- I would need to see the raw data sources. E.g., How is the spending measured? Tax dollars, out-of-pocket, or both?

But I think you are wrong -- if nothing else, this debate has shown there are a lot of areas were I think we all agree that changes can be made. A simple change would be to allow people who are on COBRA or have non-employer policies to pay the premiums on a before tax basis like when they were on their companies plan. Lots of other ideas could help lower costs too.

 

No "screw you" taken.

What windfall exactly are you referring to?

Reasonably, my share should be the same as what the insurance companies would have had to pay.

I had the right to threaten to "garnish the first buck of any of (y)our paychecks" when the state repeatedly was negligent over a period of years.

Actually, the state was at fault for continuing to renew the driver's license and registration of the vehicle for the person after a long history of requirement for having insurance. Violating their own state law.

Since I knew that ultimately I was going to have pay somethig, all I wanted was the same fees that the insurance companies would have gotten had the person who hit me been insured. I also made it clear from the get go that was really all I was after. The hospital said no effin way. "Pay up or we will screw your credit" were their exact words they left on my message machine.

My next step was to go after the state as well. My lawyers advised me against it. But I had no other choice in order to get someone, anyone's attention as to the seriousness of the state's actions, or lack thereof. and to point out the gross over inflation/extortionism of hospital fees I was being charged.

When no resolve could be had with the state, I filed a lawsuit to better get their attention and let them know I had nothing to lose and a lot of time to follow through.

They offered a mediation and I accepted. When that went south, the mediator took us into the judge's chambers where the judge basically told the state's attorneys that it would be in the state's best interest to see if they could work something out on my behalf.

When they didn't, I went back to court. The judge said he would look into it.

Two months later I got a new set of charges from the hospital. Which I paid in full over a period of some years.

The only thing I wanted, and have ever really wanted, was an even playing field. Something the so-called "health industry" has never wanted anyone to have.

 

No, they put up those millions in research to profit as much as possible off the suffering of people and animals. Plain and simple.

I would never stand in the way of a decent profit. It's the grossly offensive profit I have a problem with. I have stated in other circumstances that no amount is too much of folks are willing to pay it.

The exception is when folks have no other choice but to pay too much because the alternative is to pay with their life, or worse, great suffering.

My feeling is that I pay the top premiums for top coverage and the medications we take should be covered by that policy.

As so many have stated, one takes a risk just walking out the front door. Likewise, insurance companies take a risk that some folks they cover are going to require more expensive meds while some might not require any. that;s thier risk, and a very profitable one. I know, I worked in the industry for the last decade. And I saw exactly how they work.

The good part is that I now know how to make the system work better for me in the future should I need to.

the insurance companies are famous for changing the rules in mid game and I have no problem contesting those rules when necessary. I have recently managed to get more of our meds covered by the insurance company, and will continue to advocate for even more in the future.

Make no mistake, the pharms, the insurance companies, the entire industry is making record profits. You talk about how these companies should be able to get a return on their investment.

Well, I loaned some of these companies a few bucks to help bail them out.

And I intend to make dayum sure I get a decent return on my investment as well!

 

The Constitution says to PROMOTE Welfare not PROVIDE welfare...Free Healthcare is available by all free of charge at your local county hospital .

[youtube]VP2p91dvm6M[/youtube]

 

The chart shows the top 30 in life expectancy. I'm curious about the rest of the world, places like Russia, China, India, Ukraine, ...

Cost and spending are not equivalent even though the chart tries to say so. Spending is (colloquially) cash from the patient. Cost includes whatever is subsidized by the particular government.

Right on the futility of debate. I like what I have much better than what I would have had.

 

first of all, people who wrap themselves in the constitution usually do so to hide ulterior motives. that dude is a kook.

second, i'm shocked at how many in the far right are promoting violence these days. an assassination attempt is almost inevitable.

 

Nobody say's you have to use the free healthcare or legal counsel our great nation provides, but for those in America who think they are entitled to the world free of charge because they live within our borders and don't work, don't pay taxes, have no citizenship thats about as good as it should get...

I prefer to choose my own healthcare then to have it automatically taxed from each paycheck to pay for everyone else in America who feels they deserve it no matter what the circumstances.

The Constitution is something everyone should wrap themselves in. Our work ethic and foundation as a country might be in a better place if the people of America didn't forget the fight, cost, and sacrfice afforded to live in such a place. The entitlement syndrome currently flooding our country is only growing, fueled by empty promises, a larger deficit, and tax increases on the other side of the horizon.

The threat of violence is always eminent when people's wealth and livelihood is threatened. When the government stops fearing the people and the threat of violence is no longer an issue then you can figure out what type of government that is....

This all stems from improper healthcare regulations from the get-go that pushed privatized healthcare to where it's at today. Now everyone's got their hands out saying gimme gimme gimme.

 

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked ... oops, wrong president.