Forums | MacLife

Consider yourself lucky, Par. If you were cursed with the socialist scourge of single-payer health care, you'd be able to see any doctor you wished, whenever you felt like it. Can you imagine?????

Seriously, though ... I'm really sorry to hear about your situation. It's really horrible.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Consider yourself lucky, Par. If you were cursed with the socialist scourge of single-payer health care, you'd be able to see any doctor you wished, whenever you felt like it. Can you imagine?????

Seriously, though ... I'm really sorry to hear about your situation. It's really horrible.

If you want to feel sorry for someone feel sorry for the 3 guys I work with who are practically indentured to the company we work for because all three have significant existing conditions that would make changing insurance plans practically impossible.
It's a hell of a thing, in "The Land Of The Free", you can end up trapped, permanently in one job because you have health problems.

So lets hear it, Hooray for choice.

Jokotai wrote:

I don't have faith in the capabilities of our government running any sort of health care.  Just look at how screwed up Medicare is.

Polling demonstrates that those on medicare rate their experience more favorably than those having private insurance coverage.   

You want to see the efficiency of a well run government system?  Ask people waiting in a VA office how they feel about it.

How do veterans rate the care they receive, statistically?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

I've always wondered why those arguing for health care reform haven't used this point as a counter to those complaining about "government control."

Because you can't get two words out without someone shrieking about communism and death panels.

Pariah wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Polling demonstrates that those on medicare rate their experience more favorably than those having private insurance coverage.

Yep.

Nationwide ,medicare is one if the highest rated health plans you can have.

That's the thing. The blind assumption that no government pan could ever work.
To the true believers the fact that Medicare does a pretty good job of serving it's clients and has an administrative overhead of just 1%, is utterly beside the point, they must be bad because it's a government program.
Facts that do not support the articles of faith on the right are ignored.

Careful on the overhead part.
I'm still trying off and on to track down the truth but I've seen it argued that using the percentage is misleading because medicare pays more per person (elderly take more medical care than the young) on average than the typical private plan.

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

Yep.

Nationwide ,medicare is one if the highest rated health plans you can have.

That's the thing. The blind assumption that no government pan could ever work.
To the true believers the fact that Medicare does a pretty good job of serving it's clients and has an administrative overhead of just 1%, is utterly beside the point, they must be bad because it's a government program.
Facts that do not support the articles of faith on the right are ignored.

Careful on the overhead part.
I'm still trying off and on to track down the truth but I've seen it argued that using the percentage is misleading because medicare pays more per person (elderly take more medical care than the young) on average than the typical private plan.

It would have to be 30x more to bring them on the level of private insurance which averages a 30% overhead.
The money for 30 million a year salaries need to come from somewhere.

robco wrote:

Also, to be fair, providers tend to lose money on Medicare patients. Like Medicaid, it doesn't fully reimburse the cost of providing care - but it's a lot closer than what Medicaid reimburses (which is next to nothing). This is yet another shortfall providers pass on to those with insurance. If we want Medicare for all, we'll need to bump up the amount Medicare pays a bit. But bear in mind that Medicare does have co-pays and deductibles that aren't insignificant. Most seniors require supplemental insurance. It also doesn't cover a lot of preventive care. It is better than nothing however.

Medicare and medicaids payment level is because of the chronic underfunding caused by right wingers.
It's the usual right wing play: Cut the funding till a department can't do it's job then point at that department and go "Look, another crappy government program".

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

robco wrote:

Also, to be fair, providers tend to lose money on Medicare patients. Like Medicaid, it doesn't fully reimburse the cost of providing care - but it's a lot closer than what Medicaid reimburses (which is next to nothing). This is yet another shortfall providers pass on to those with insurance. If we want Medicare for all, we'll need to bump up the amount Medicare pays a bit. But bear in mind that Medicare does have co-pays and deductibles that aren't insignificant. Most seniors require supplemental insurance. It also doesn't cover a lot of preventive care. It is better than nothing however.

Medicare and medicaids payment level is because of the chronic underfunding caused by right wingers.
It's the usual right wing play: Cut the funding till a department can't do it's job then point at that department and go "Look, another crappy government program".

What underfunding?

Farmerkev wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

What underfunding?

Do you mean underpaying providers or underfunding the program?
Medicare is still solvent for another 10 years.

At present rates.
more funding would equal better rates for the Doctors. But that would take a tax hike and since the right has half the country believing that everything is free, raising taxes or the deduction cutoff would be nigh on impossible.

Yeah - I think we should have a single payer internet service as well.
Back when I had @home, they went out of business forcing me to switch e-mail addresses !!!!!!!!!

The government should just run everything.
Screw private industry that actually competes.

resedit wrote:

The government should just run everything.
Screw private industry that actually competes.

It's worked out for you, hasn't it?

Health Insurance A Near-Monopoly, Study Finds


Health insurance is nearing monopoly status in most markets, driving up the cost of insurance, reducing innovation in health care and squeezing doctors and hospitals, an American Medical Association (AMA) report finds.

"The remarkable reduction in the number of competing health plans is troubling for doctors and patients, as competition drives innovation and efficiency in the health care system," said AMA Board Member J. James Rohack, M.D. "Most alarmingly, in the combined HMO and PPO markets, 95 percent of metropolitan areas have few competing health insurers."

In addition, the study found that in 95 percent of markets, a single insurer had a market share of 30 percent or greater, and in 56 percent of the markets, a single insurer had a market share of 50 percent or greater.

The AMA report, Competition in Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Study of U.S. Markets, analyzed 294 metropolitan health insurance markets against an index used by federal regulators for measuring market concentration. According to the federal index, markets that are highly concentrated have few competing health insurers.

"Patients do not appear to be benefiting from the consolidation of health insurance markets," said Dr. Rohack. "Health insurers are posting historically high profit margins, yet patient health insurance premiums continue to rise without an expansion of benefits."

The AMA findings must be viewed in the context of the unprecedented consolidation of the health insurance market, Rohack said. Between 1995 and 2005, there were more than 400 mergers involving health insurers and managed care organizations, according to a researcher of merger and acquisition trends in the health care industry.

"Given the troubling trends in health insurance nationwide, federal regulators need to take a hard look at whether patients are being harmed as mergers and takeovers reduce the number of competing health insurers," said Dr. Rohack. "When it is difficult for a new insurer to enter a market with few dominant health plans, patients can be charged high prices without the threat of competition to keep insurers in check."

Link.

Last edited by bratboy (2009-09-03 8:10 pm)

Insurance premiums are rising because we've hit the point where improvements in medical technology is very expensive.

I've already given an example.
Back in the 60's and 70's, rattlesnake antivenin was made from horses. The very small percentage of the population that was allergic often died as a result. Now treatment for a rattlesnake bite is much more expensive because the syrum is made using a different process including sheep, so that reactions to horse antivenin is less likely to result in fatality.

Not only is each vile more expensive, but a very high percentage of vials expire before they are used and must be thrown away.
It's a huge increase in cost but it is necessary to save a few lives.

Whenever you have increase in cost, you have higher profit margins. That happens in every market. Even your market. Legal costs have gone up resulting in higher legal fees resulting in higher profit margins for legal firms.