Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

[Roughneck]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

One point that I think is not widely understood is the REASON the government wants to control the healthcare system. In Obamas speeches he talks about controlling medicare and medicaid costs before it overwelms the federal budget. How do you think they will accomplish this? By rationing care. They are doing studies as we speak about effective treatments and outcomes. Ohh were sorry your cancer only has a 30% survival rate guess what? maybe we can offer you assisted suicide instead? They can talk boust lowering costs through "reducing waste" blah blah. The real savings is in limitimg the amount of services you will get and lowering how much they pay to doctors and hosspitals. Most people use the most health care dollars late in life where the potential cost of treating someone may not be practical due to life expectancy.

[drumminj]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

The gov. got involved when private insurers lobbied for them to do so, you guys keep going on about the gov., but a lot if not most everything they've done is at the behest of private insurers.

I wasn't trying to claim that the gov't decided on it's own to do this, or to hold it up as an example of poor-decision making by the gov't (though I'd argue it is - but the bad decision was to listen to the ins companies). My point is that many of the problems in the system right now are caused by the government. In this case, the gov't put regulations into place which led to where we are now. Yes, things aren't ideal now..but one can argue (and I am) that they would be better if we'd go back and un-do the gov't action many years ago, rather than simply take MORE gov't action now.

Most of the money spent on health care goes to a)insurance companies and b) drug companies, with medical equip. suppliers, hospitals, and doctors coming in a very distant 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Adding more insurance companies to increase competition won't fix that issue since the ones that currently exist already collude to keep rates high.

having more competition would put pressure on ins company profit. It'd also allow for a wider variety of more "affordable" options for people, so people could choose wellness insurance, and others could simply choose catastrophic insurance. Don't you know friends who have Geico or some other "small-name" auto insurance because it's cheaper? As a result, the established parties (state farm, all state, etc) need to either increase service or decrease costs to compete. Same would be true with health insurance.

If the gov. does it better for less than the current system I don't really care about this issue.

Better from who's perspective. For less according to who's perspective? Chances are it's going to cost me more than it currently does. And chances are I'll have fewer options as other insurance companies go out of business, or just exit the field because the gov't is competing unfairly.

But that is what a government is all about right? Taxing people to pool wealth to buy the infrastructure/services none of us (perhaps even the most wealthy of us) could afford. I mean, you can't afford the roads or police officers or internet infrastructure by yourself either right? Aren't all those things beneficial to society too, and fundamentally they're all the same thing right (taking your/my/our wealth for public service)?

And I would argue that in most cases this is immoral. There are certain things that are for the "public good", surely..roads, parks, etc. All can get equal benefit from these things. With healthcare, I don't believe that to be the case.

AFAIK this UHS bill won't eliminate drug companies profits, it'll only reduce them and probably not much at that so I don't know why everyone is so worried about this....

Because it eliminates incentive. How much profit is "enough"? Only the risk-taker can adequately determine that.

Plenty of R&D is done in other countries, if you're not in the medical field you won't hear about any of it though.

But who's paying for it? My point is that you can't point at Canada and say "drugs are $XXX there. That means we can pay $XXX as well and everything else will stay the same". It's very possible it won't stay the same, as some research many only make sense if the companies can bank on the margins they get from the US payers. I can't prove that to be the case, and you likely can't disprove it...all I'm saying is that it's likely a faulty assumption to think that capping the retail price of a product won't affect the amount of R&D done into similar products.

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Umm. Yea. The Military is a great model. Provided all you do is look at the benefits you get and not at the costs which you conveniently don't mention.

I appreciate and respect your service. But your lack of any mention of cost reveals a deep lack of awareness of what your health care coverage costs and maybe how it is paid for. The military spends roughly 600% per person ($118,000 per person average) what private insurers pay. You damn well better get better coverage!

You and the rest of the military's personnel couldn't come CLOSE to paying for your own health care out of your own taxes during your service. The reason you get great health care is on the backs of a huge quantity of people who on average make lots more. This is fine and well deserved for the military. But it's ridiculous to think this scales to a national model! The USA doesn't have a radically larger and richer population to tax as the military does.

Plus, you don't seem aware that the military health care spending is a huge financial boondogle. Don't trust me though... take a look at the GAO Comptroller's Powerpoint... DOD starts at slide 10. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07766cg.pdf

Interesting read there, thanks.

Of course the fact a war was ongoing over the last six years has to account for a lot of that added DOD health expense. The type of injuries coming out of this war (IEDs) have to be very expensive to treat, as well as the usual PTSD cases. So hard to fairly compare civilian health care costs to costs of a military at war. And yes, I saw only 42% of patients were active duty, but that doesn't reflect where each dollar goes. Treating paraplegics is more expensive than say, arthritis. I didn't read it that carefully, they may have shown more detail on expenses of active personel vs retired.

Looks like they've also had to promise better benefits in order to continue to attract enlistments. The real cost of the war shows up in stuff like this, the long term cost of providing all these benefits to service personel. Its nothing new, WWII had things like the GI bill and VA care of course. The expenses don't stop once the bullets do.


As far as medical expenses being that high, this is what I read,

"Enhanced PAY and benefits, including health care costs, increased costs to an average of $111,783 per person" This was for active personnel.

And I'd also refer anyone who thinks we don't need health care reform to this from the same report:

What is to be done?
•The “Status Quo”is Not an Option
•We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs
•GAO’s simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as
•Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or
•Raising federal taxes to 2 times today's level
•Faster Economic Growth Can Help, but It Cannot Solve the Problem
•Closing the current long-term fiscal gap based on reasonable assumptions would require real average annual economic growth in the double digit range every year for the next 75 years
•During the 1990s, the economy grew at an average 3.2 percent peryear
•As a result, we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem. Tough choices will be required

At times I feel that people fighting any change in health care are those at or approaching medicare age who simply have the attitude that as long as they get theirs, screw everyone else. The facts are, we can't survive without changes. The question is what is the best way to go about it?

[Zen$]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

The confederacy of dunces will screw it up.

[MarkL]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I think everyone in the US should have the ability to afford the same quality of health care that I and my family enjoy (at public expense, I'm in the military, remember?). ...If you want a real life example of "SOCIALIZED" Medicine, I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. I've been living with (and enjoying) socialized medicine for the last 12 years right here in the good old US of A. I think every american should have the same opportunity.

Umm. Yea. The Military is a great model. Provided all you do is look at the benefits you get and not at the costs which you conveniently don't mention.

I appreciate and respect your service. But your lack of any mention of cost reveals a deep lack of awareness of what your health care coverage costs and maybe how it is paid for. The military spends roughly 600% per person ($118,000 per person average) what private insurers pay. You damn well better get better coverage!

You and the rest of the military's personnel couldn't come CLOSE to paying for your own health care out of your own taxes during your service. The reason you get great health care is on the backs of a huge quantity of people who on average make lots more. This is fine and well deserved for the military. But it's ridiculous to think this scales to a national model! The USA doesn't have a radically larger and richer population to tax as the military does.

Plus, you don't seem aware that the military health care spending is a huge financial boondogle. Don't trust me though... take a look at the GAO Comptroller's Powerpoint... DOD starts at slide 10. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07766cg.pdf

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Interesting perspective. Are all of the doctors and health care providers also enlisted personnel?

The doctors would be officers, not enlisted. That's how the military accounts for the higher pay scales required for certain jobs.

Medical healthcare has its own ups and downs. I read (from unreliable sources) stories of delays in Veterans Admin (VA) health provisioning that resemble the other horror stories of socialized medicine delays, intended to discredit nationalized health care. The dental care (I had lots of cavities in my youth) I received (Vietnam timeframe) was basic drill and fill by dentists not usually either the best or the most experienced. If I were in urgent need of trauma care after an auto accident or a gunshot wound, I would much prefer to be treated by someone with combat medical experience from Iraq or Afghanistan.

The size of the organization, the degree of its impact on the frontline, and the funding structure of the organization really do matter.

If the doctor, nurse or medic on the front line is mostly focused on doing the best they can for the health of their patients, within whatever constraints present themselves, then that's good in my book. If the frontline practioners are mostly someones "profit center", burdened by rules and red tape and bureacracies beholden to seekers of power or profit, then that's bad in my book. It might start out better, when a huge investment in training and facilities and staff enables providing a higher level of sophisticated service and procedures that was not possible before. Power corrupts.

[rjwjr]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I don't think anyone can argue that we have the best healthcare just the worst (read manipulated) cost structure.

That's an interesting way to state the argument. I like it. The big question then is can we change the cost structure without negatively affecting the care?

Getting back to the original post, why wasn't Obama asked a question about that paragraph/provision/restriction tonight? The press corps' questions were laughably juvenile and passive.

[mesyn191]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I'm not ignoring what you said. Honestly, I don't see anything in your posts to respond to directly.

OK, I'm talking about this one here in reply to another poster:

The businesses wanted the cartel in the first place, you'd have to get rid of the cartel and the businesses and the laws that hold both of those things together, all of which would require massive government involvement. You'd be right back to square one, which is relying on the people you don't trust and/or who are incompetent to fix the problem.

Insurance used to be just that - insurance - once upon a time.

The gov. got involved when private insurers lobbied for them to do so, you guys keep going on about the gov., but a lot if not most everything they've done is at the behest of private insurers.

Address these issues, and things would likely get better.

Most of the money spent on health care goes to a)insurance companies and b) drug companies, with medical equip. suppliers, hospitals, and doctors coming in a very distant 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Adding more insurance companies to increase competition won't fix that issue since the ones that currently exist already collude to keep rates high.

But all gov't getting involved will do is push out private insurers, leaving us with fewer/no choices, as the gov't is not competing on a level playing field.

If the gov. does it better for less than the current system I don't really care about this issue.

In order for someone who can't pay for insurance/health care to get it is to take wealth from someone else, and that's fundamentally wrong.

But that is what a government is all about right? Taxing people to pool wealth to buy the infrastructure/services none of us (perhaps even the most wealthy of us) could afford. I mean, you can't afford the roads or police officers or internet infrastructure by yourself either right? Aren't all those things beneficial to society too, and fundamentally they're all the same thing right (taking your/my/our wealth for public service)?

One could also argue that, were it not for the profits the drug and health care industries make from the US clients, fewer research would be done.

Have you been following all the stupid shit these guys do? They'll regularly fire whole research teams on antibotics or cancer research just so they can eek out a profit for a quarter or 2, or to spend more R&D money developing more erectile dysfunction drugs (ie. Viagra). Why do you think all the doctors are so freaked out about all the former nosocomial diseases becoming commonplace out in the public now? Also, AFAIK this UHS bill won't eliminate drug companies profits, it'll only reduce them and probably not much at that so I don't know why everyone is so worried about this....

it's possible that the US is subsidizing the research for the rest of the world and that is why our costs are considerably higher.

Plenty of R&D is done in other countries, if you're not in the medical field you won't hear about any of it though.

[bobola]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

“In fact, 74 percent of American health care costs are due to preventable lifestyle-related behaviors such as smoking, according to a 2006 study by Purdue University.”

http://www.agentssalesjournal.com/content/view/982/54/


“The rapid growth in the proportion of Americans with clinically severe obesity has enormous implications for the nation’s health care system. Severely obese people are more than twice as likely as people of normal weight to be in fair or poor health and have about twice as many chronic medical conditions. This translates into higher health care costs — 69 percent higher for men, 60 percent higher for women — compared with people of normal weight.”

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_br...-1/index1.html

[flintlock]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I saw an article yesterday about a Serviceman going in for gall bladder surgery and coming out with two amputated legs, but I guess that can happen anywhere.

Thanks Jtabeb for expressing your belief that all Americans should have access to the same care you receive. Not all are so selfless.

[Ghent12]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I think everyone in the US should have the ability to afford the same quality of health care that I and my family enjoy (at public expense, I'm in the military, remember?). My wife and I have had three children in the military (C-section no less), two major operations, numerous ER visits, and the peace of mind NOT to be worried about our health care. That's a FREEDOM that I would be proud to fight for.

Go see "SICKO" by Michael Moore.

I sometimes complain about my healthcare BUT AM ALWAYS thankful for it.
I don't think I should be treated better than the people I'm serving.

If you want a real life example of "SOCIALIZED" Medicine, I'd be happy to answer any of your questions. I've been living with (and enjoying) socialized medicine for the last 12 years right here in the good old US of A. I think every american should have the same opportunity. (And if you think it sucks, well, let's just say I HAVE NO HORROR stories about my medical coverage, that's not true of many of my private sector friends that I have talked with.)

Or you could also talk to my buddy who's daughter was born with spinobiffeda. And be sure to ask him how happy he is that his daughter rachel can lead an almost normal life (because of the treatment she had when she was less than 2 years old). Or my buddy who's kids were born with misformed hands, or my friend who's child has autism, etc. etc.

The point is FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE (remember we are talking military here) has TREMENDOUSLY positive health outcomes, responsiveness, and complete coverage. I wish you could all have my coverage for a year, then I think you would have a sound basis for judgment.

Seriously, the military, and gov workers have had this benefit for years, we know how to do this AND IT WORKS! (AND I, LIKE IT)



Just my 2c.

I agree that TRICARE is pretty good. I do have some complaints about some dentists that put in some fillings, but other than that, no truly bad stories to tell. However, do you really think such a system could be expanded to cover the remaining 97% of the population?

Military personnel like us are, on average, more fit than the standard civilian. We, unlike almost everyone else, are required to pass certain physical standards periodically as part of our jobs. I don't know about you, but I'm in the Navy, and we do PT three times a week as a standard, and get evaluated every six months. While military personnel (and especially Marines) are more susceptible to long-term physical injuries, on balance, we are in a system that cannot be truly mimicked by the outside world. We are also in a system that is wholly subsidized by the outside world.



As to the questions of details on TRICARE, it's fairly simple. So many college kids join the military's various medical corps as a way to pay for their schooling, but there is an insatiable demand. Further, the enlisted personnel in the medical fields do not normally perform the work of doctors or nurses, at least in the Navy. The largest rating in the Navy is for Hospital Corpsmen, and they always want/need more.

Among the reasons why it's the quality it is? I'm not so sure it's any one trait, but among them would be that the people in charge are commissioned for results. That is very much unlike, say, a typical political arrangement or business arrangement.


One interesting story on "cosmetic" or "unnecessary" proceedures: I was very fortunate to have PRK done at Trippler Army Medical Center in Hawai'i because they canvassed the ship I was in for people who wanted it done. They needed to keep the doctors busy doing it to keep up their proficiency (they normally only do combat infantry or combat support, but had some open spots in the queue). So I got a $4000 proceedure for free, and was asked if I wanted it done.

But again, would that be possible or likely under a nation-wide system? I have strong doubts.

[raja]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Interesting how very few talk about getting fit, staying fit and eating a healthy balanced diet as a way to control health costs.

Travel outside our border and one of the first things you realize is how fat Americans are compared to the rest of the world.

When you commute to work tomorrow, look at all the cars in line at McDonalds and Wendy’s, going for their first meal of the day.

That’s the root of the problem – rotten food at a cheap price close to home and available from the front seat of your car.

I agree . . . Americans would be a lot healthier if they ate better . . . but it's never going to happen :eek:

A young man has been working with me on my farm. Every day I've been watching him drink softdrinks and eat candy bars and junky snacks. Finally, I said this to him (using an analogy that hopefully he would understand):

"Suppose you have a herd of sheep, and you fed them hay. One day a businessman comes up to you and says, 'I will pay you fifty cents a bale if you let me take out half the vitamins, minerals and oils from your hay. I will return the hay to you and you can still feed it to your sheep. Your sheep will get fed, and you will make some money.'
What would you say to the businessman?

The boy answered, "That would be foolish. What's the point of giving sheep food that has half the good stuff taken away. They would get sick or die."

I said, "I agree . . . and that's exactly what businessmen are doing to you. Each day I watch you eat sugar and white flour. Sugar is made from a vegetable, from which the food industry has taken all the vitamins, minerals, fiber and other essetial elements . . . leaving only the empty carbohydrate that provides energy. White bread comes from a factory where many of the essential vitamins, minerals and oils are removed, then it is sold to you."

He looked at me speechless. He got it!

He asked me, "Why do they do that?"
I gave him a long answer (that I won't reproduce here) to which he listened intently.

Then, I said, "This why so many people are sick in America. Their food has been robbed of what their bodies need to be healthy."

Unfortunately, those responsible for our health cannot understand the simple truth that this farm boy grasped immediately.
I would guess that 95% of of our society, including doctors, medical educators, and others whose job it is to keep Americans healthy, regularly eat sugar and refined flours. Every restaurant and food outlet serves sugar and refined flour. How can we expect a change to a healthier diet -- one that would slash healthcare costs -- with such entrenched ignorance?

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Our whole problem is that they throw around such large numbers for so long, we all get de-sensitized to it.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

[drumminj]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

Our whole problem is that they throw around such large numbers for so long, we all get de-sensitized to it.

That's a good point, but I think it's true of small numbers as well. People easily rationalize that $100million isn't a big deal when looking at a budget of $5billion. Sure, it may be a small percentage. But it also can add up to $1000/per taxpayer.

For example, they built new highways where I used to live. The support structures for the flyovers at interchanges weren't just concrete, but had a fancy texture/pattern to them. Sure, it looks nice, but that's an extra cost that personally I'd rather not pay. Given the interest on the bonds for the construction, how much did that bit of flair cost each taxpapyer? Yet most people ignore it because it's not $1trillion.

[drumminj]

Re: Investor's Business Daily finds an "uh-oh" moment in the House's health-care-for-all bill

I think I already addressed this in another post down the page, if you disagree with that than OK but give some reasons, ignoring what I said won't help anyone.

I'm not ignoring what you said. Honestly, I don't see anything in your posts to respond to directly.

This topic is covered in another thread a few days ago, which I think makes this point pretty well. Insurance used to be just that - insurance - once upon a time. Then the gov't got involved, gave tax incentives for employers to provide health care, etc. The barriers to entry for an "insurance" company are quite high due to gov't regulations, esp when it comes to being eligable insurer for employers. Because of this fact, 1) people can't shop around for insurance companies as easily, and 2) new insurers can't come into the fold.

Address these issues, and things would likely get better. I'm not arguing that there aren't issues now. But all gov't getting involved will do is push out private insurers, leaving us with fewer/no choices, as the gov't is not competing on a level playing field.

Regardless, I don't feel that insurance/healthcare is a *right* like others here claim. In order for someone who can't pay for insurance/health care to get it is to take wealth from someone else, and that's fundamentally wrong. If medical providers want to provide free/low-cost care on their own, that's one thing. But for the gov't to mandate it is wholly another.

One could also argue that, were it not for the profits the drug and health care industries make from the US clients, fewer research would be done. There has to be enough of a financial incentive to take the risk. I don't think it can be proven or disproven, but certainly it's possible that the US is subsidizing the research for the rest of the world and that is why our costs are considerably higher.