Fine for refusing health care?!?!?! - The Health care thread....

[seang]

see, part of the problem is that it is very expensive to eat healthy, and monumentally cheap to eat poorly. maybe now everyone understands how complex the health care issue. you have unwed teen mothers, you have overaeting poor people, you have welfare fraud families, and at the center of it, a government that is demanded to fix it all. There is no perfect solution, but we have to try and find it. To sit and say, that isnt going to work, doesnt help.

You can eat cabbage and beef for 30 dollars a week. 2000 calories a day for a lay man is plenty for vibrant health. Healthy eating dosen't HAVE to be outrageously expensinive, I know, I live it.

[AZhitman]

^ I'm gonna agree.

I used to think it was a lot cheaper to eat junk. The reality is, it's just more work.

Bex was telling me the other day about some show she was watching where the head of household was feeding his family (adequately) on $15 a week. Still can't wrap my head around THAT.

[seang]

Anyone who wants to eat healthy, the info is all there. Grow some veggies yourself, keep a modest chicken coop, dry and pickle foods and live without refrigeration, I'm considering it someday. 6 years ago, I could not cook for the life of me. People are too afraid of the peasant way of doing things. Hell, I bet I could live on 1000 dollars a year! The biggest hit would be property taxes. Of course there would be no room for large scale technology in that world, but it would be very fullfilling nonetheless. I could sit for hours and do nothing at all, and be completely satisfied because I would be at peace with my world. Entertainment would not even be neccessary. BTW, I feel f***ed up for gushing all over this thread and getting off the topic, sorry, these topics just incite things in me.
Modified by seang at 10:28 PM 7/6/2009

[heliochrome85]

Anyone who wants to eat healthy, the info is all there. Grow some veggies yourself, keep a modest chicken coop, dry and pickle foods and live without refrigeration, I'm considering it someday. 6 years ago, I could not cook for the life of me. People are too afraid of the peasant way of doing things. Hell, I bet I could live on 1000 dollars a year! The biggest hit would be property taxes. Of course there would be no room for large scale technology in that world, but it would be very fullfilling nonetheless. I could sit for hours and do nothing at all, and be completely satisfied because I would be at peace with my world. Entertainment would not even be neccessary. BTW, I feel f***ed up for gushing all over this thread and getting off the topic, sorry, these topics just insite things in me.

yeah, screw that. as soon as i get state side, im finding the nearest Ruth Chris, or Fogo De Chao and eating my weight in delicious steaks and tenderloins.

[seang]

^ HaHa, reality check for me. I don't always stick with my aformentioned plan, steak is really good sometimes mmmmm delicious

[audtatious]

But taco's and General TSO is soooooo good.....

[heliochrome85]

can't buy that and live on 1000 bucks for the year...

EDIT: Huge pic of delicious steak is huge. And delicious.

[PoorManQ45]

Wow, that picture looks effing delicious!!!

What do you guys think about possible tax breaks for companies that prepare healthier foods?

I mean, they just added tax to cigarettes. Why not the other way around for going healthy?

[480sx]

My point: there are any number of reasons our infant rate would or would not be in the top 10. This statistic, in and of itself, proves nothing about the quality of our healthcare.

High infant mortality rates as well as congenial defects in my opinion can stem from genetic degredation of the population, and possible accidental inbreeding. How could you possibly know that the person you are having kids with isn't your 3rd cousin from way back in the family tree? Its a radical thought, but is it? Also, stress dosen't increase health at all, stress contributes to premature births which can kill babies, and how many pregnant mothers out there are stressed? God, is there any way out of this?

Nailed it. Thanks sean btw.

All those articles say basically the same thing. That while our mortality rates are excessively high, so are our premature birth rates.

Thanks for the time you guys spent digging that info up. It was just hard for me to swallow.
Modified by 480sx at 4:13 PM 7/7/2009

[smockers83]

Mmmm, Ruth's Chris. I need to head to Chicago, pronto.

I've read about 1.5 pages of this discussion, so the 2nd 1.5, I don't know what has been talked about really except for eating steak, General Tso's, and something about infant mortality rates.

Perhaps I can bring the discussion back on track.

Universal healthcare or however you want to call it isn't the answer. Nor is insurance reform. The system isn't necessarily broken, the system is being applied in a wasteful and costly way, leading to health care costs rising much more than inflation.

Some of it has to do with the increased demand on the system as our population ages. However, much of it is due to the way we apply the system. I would estimate that 97%-98% of hospitals apply themselves the wrong way. The leading example of the few that do apply themselves the right way is the Cleveland Clinic.

Cleveland Clinic is known world-wide for it's quality care for relatively low costs. On top of that, the Clinic just started it's medical school and all of it's students are going to school for free, but that's besides the point.

What makes Cleveland Clinic different? Pay structure. Every doctor there is salaried. Each doctor makes the same amount (based on their specialty I'm sure). The pay structure in the majority of hospitals is like a pay-as-you-go system, where the doctor orders up a procedure and you pay. This leads to doctors doing unnecessary procedures, making healthcare procedure oriented and not patient oriented. Under these terms, doctors compete for procedures and patients. If doctors are subjected to a salaried pay structure, it changes the game plan altogether. Doctors are no longer procedure oriented as they no longer get paid per procedure. This not only reduces a lot of waste generated, but improves efficiency in the system as well as competition and teamwork all at the same time.

The CEO of CC should be our top health guy in the government. I can't say I have that 100% right, but it's definitely above 95% correct. The CEO of CC was interviewed awhile back on healthcare reform as he is a pioneer and leader in the area.

[smockers83]

I have completely stopped watching your traditional news outlets like CNN and Fox News. The only news channel I will watch anymore is CNBC. They talk about all the news I'm interested in and it all makes sense to me being an economics graduate. They have a lot of great discussions on what is going on out there in our country. Here are some on healthcare.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/1584023...lay=1h ... 23...lay=1

I can't seem to find the interview that I based my last post on. I'll try to remember to find it some other time and post it.

Here's what I don't get about the whole insurance thing and the ongoing debate, and I'll say it now that I think the AFL guy in the first video is a complete moron (as is that whole organization). People are complaining that costs are too high. Health insurance is used as a method of payment for health care. So why are we blaming the health insurance companies? It's not the insurance companies' fault that costs are rising; if they have to pay out more they're going to charge you more. They're like a clearing house for your medical bill if you will. To me, we are attacking the problem in the absolute wrong area. It's like killing the messenger. If healthcare costs decreased, insurance premiums would decrease, which then prices people into the market who were otherwise priced out. So attacking the insurance aspect of the issue doesn't solve the problem, the problem still remains in that health care is still too expensive. It's too expensive not because of insurance companies, but because of the health care providers at the point of patient-provider interaction. Solve that aspect in terms of cost and then you have health care reform.

Another aspect, going back to my previous post, is that doctors are under tremendous legal pressure. If they don't do a procedure and something happens, they can get sued, so they do the procedure to cover themselves. This is another area and example of waste.
Modified by smockers83 at 4:04 PM 7/7/2009

[Urabus GodofTraction]

People are complaining that costs are too high. Health insurance is used as a method of payment for health care. So why are we blaming the health insurance companies? It's not the insurance companies' fault that costs are rising; if they have to pay out more they're going to charge you more. They're like a clearing house for your medical bill if you will. To me, we are attacking the problem in the absolute wrong area. It's like killing the messenger. If healthcare costs decreased, insurance premiums would decrease, which then prices people into the market who were otherwise priced out. So attacking the insurance aspect of the issue doesn't solve the problem, the problem still remains in that health care is still too expensive. It's too expensive not because of insurance companies, but because of the health care providers at the point of patient-provider interaction. Solve that aspect in terms of cost and then you have health care reform.

But here's how it works:

You get charged $1,000 dollars for, say, a CAT scan.Your insurance comes back to the hospital and says "No, we're only going to pay 50% of that, and you're going to take it and you're going to be happy."The hospital raises it's costs 50%.This is why it's very, very easy to negotiate with a hospital over the bill when you're paying cash. One of the guys on another forum has paid for five births with cash, and paid something like 30% of sticker price.

So insurance policies certainly don't help.

What do you guys think about possible tax breaks for companies that prepare healthier foods?

How about lower taxes all around, I don't have to pay for other people's terrible eating habits, and people can eat whatever they can afford (or charge on their credit card)?

[PoorManQ45]

How about lower taxes all around, I don't have to pay for other people's terrible eating habits, and people can eat whatever they can afford (or charge on their credit card)?

One of the problems I see is that in most places the option to eat healthier is more expensive then eating poorly.

If more people were able to afford healthy food I wonder if more people would eat healthier.

[PoorManQ45]

five births...30% of sticker price.

Ah, the elusive combo package

[marlin29311]

One of the problems I see is that in most places the option to eat healthier is more expensive then eating poorly.

If more people were able to afford healthy food I wonder if more people would eat healthier.

I can get a a grilled chicken sandwich and a cup of fruit and a bottle of water for under $6 at wawa, which is cheaper than a Fat-mac and fries at your McD's and a world healthier too. People eat crappy because it tastes good and they just don't care, and then look to Oprah and Rachel Ray for their garbage "ONE RULE" diet to solve all their problems.

Biggest problem with our healthcare system? Has nothing to do with medicine or doctors....its lawyers. The price of malpractice insurance drives up the cost of our healthcare system so much that it makes it nearly impossible for people to have a private practice anymore. People need to stop being able to sue because the cut on their finger didn't heal in 30 minutes... Is there legitimate malpractice? Of course - when they amputate your left arm instead of your right, that's a bad thing. But because your baby came out wrong because you were an alcolohic crackhead, that's your own damn fault.

[hsckris]

I can get a a grilled chicken sandwich and a cup of fruit and a bottle of water for under $6 at wawa, which is cheaper than a Fat-mac and fries at your McD's and a world healthier too. People eat crappy because it tastes good and they just don't care, and then look to Oprah and Rachel Ray for their garbage "ONE RULE" diet to solve all their problems.

Biggest problem with our healthcare system? Has nothing to do with medicine or doctors....its lawyers. The price of malpractice insurance drives up the cost of our healthcare system so much that it makes it nearly impossible for people to have a private practice anymore. People need to stop being able to sue because the cut on their finger didn't heal in 30 minutes... Is there legitimate malpractice? Of course - when they amputate your left arm instead of your right, that's a bad thing. But because your baby came out wrong because you were an alcolohic crackhead, that's your own damn fault.

This is not necessarily directed at you, but...People seem to LOVE to jump on this law reform bandwagon without ANY proof. I have yet to see reliable statistics showing the number, true costs, etc. of suits that wouldn't have existed if we had reform or frivolous suits. I haven't seen any reliable figures on how much insurance costs would go down due to X legal reform. Until I see some hard numbers, I don't think this it is fair (or accurate) to blame the healthcare problem on the legal system.

[marlin29311]

Legal reform isn't just healthcare directed - it's directed at anything that has insurable interest - I see the rates that we charge for personal liability go up and up every year, simply because of the increased amount of legal activity against private parties. The same holds true for all liability insurance...rates continually go up because actuarial analysis performed by the compaines on an ongoing basis - more and more suits are brought up each year, and the rewards grated continually increase as well - those types of numbers are going to be hard to determine because of the fact that all of this data is privy to the individual insurance compaines - you only hear about the settlement data on the super huge cases, but I can tell you from seeing things first hand how much stuff costs - I just saw a claim come by about someone that was granted $450k because someone pushed another person....and that's all off the legal records.

It is extremely hard for you to find the hard data because of this - insurance compaines don't want to release the data because it's private and could potentially hurt them if other compaines saw the numbers. My evidence is somewhat second hand, but the rising rates are pretty hard if you ask me - and those rates have to be approved by the state insurance departments, so apparently the state agrees as well...

[smockers83]

But here's how it works:

You get charged $1,000 dollars for, say, a CAT scan.Your insurance comes back to the hospital and says "No, we're only going to pay 50% of that, and you're going to take it and you're going to be happy."The hospital raises it's costs 50%.This is why it's very, very easy to negotiate with a hospital over the bill when you're paying cash. One of the guys on another forum has paid for five births with cash, and paid something like 30% of sticker price.

So insurance policies certainly don't help.

I understand how it works. What you describe here is just idiocy by the consumer of health insurance. Each plan sets out how much it will cover for certain procedures and a participant should know how the plan works. People buy/get insurance and have no idea how it works. I could walk you through my insurance plan and know how much my insurance covers me for. This also shows the glaring poor financial planning on behalf of the patient. People don't save money for emergencies. This is where the HSAs come in as they're essentially a savings account for emergencies. That's all it is. Whether we transfer money spent on insurance to HSAs or not isn't going to change the fact that healthcare at the point of patient-provider interaction hasn't been made more valuable.

But, this still doesn't solve the problem of high cost and waste. What if we were able to reduce the CAT scan cost down to $650?

Insurance isn't designed to be a pay-for-it-all, cover-me-100% solution to our problems. That's not the logic/idea behind insurance. Insurance helps to spread risk out among the people participating, lowering the risk for each par person.

[hsckris]

Legal reform isn't just healthcare directed - it's directed at anything that has insurable interest - I see the rates that we charge for personal liability go up and up every year, simply because of the increased amount of legal activity against private parties. The same holds true for all liability insurance...rates continually go up because actuarial analysis performed by the compaines on an ongoing basis - more and more suits are brought up each year, and the rewards grated continually increase as well - those types of numbers are going to be hard to determine because of the fact that all of this data is privy to the individual insurance compaines - you only hear about the settlement data on the super huge cases, but I can tell you from seeing things first hand how much stuff costs - I just saw a claim come by about someone that was granted $450k because someone pushed another person....and that's all off the legal records.

It is extremely hard for you to find the hard data because of this - insurance compaines don't want to release the data because it's private and could potentially hurt them if other compaines saw the numbers. My evidence is somewhat second hand, but the rising rates are pretty hard if you ask me - and those rates have to be approved by the state insurance departments, so apparently the state agrees as well...

So your evidence is anecdotal, and about insurance rates. Seems to me that without direct proof there is no reason to believe the root cause is legal aspect rather than insurance itself. Either is equally likely without proof. Or, as said earlier, could it be the 'pay per procedure' policy of most hospitals? My point is that it is all speculation in the absence of concrete evidence.

[C-Kwik]

Without doing any current research or statistic findings, ill just say this. We have some of the most advanced health care in the world in certain locations around the US. Our cancer survivor rate trumps that of any other country i believe. People with money come from all over the world to see some of our doctors.

There is give and take to what we do better and what other countries do better in. But take a moment to actually read the link Tariq posted earlier. Here's the link again so were clear as to which article I'm referring to:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/st...b3474

On the third page, it goes into how much money the US dedicates to researching in the medical field and why UH would not have any effect on it.

Ever see a linear accelerator? Yea they are one of the coolest things ever and 'common' in America at this point.

Please be clear as to the point you are making here.

Public health care kinda falls under the whole communism theory of failure IMO. That being, without the desire to strive to be the best doctor, to make the best advancements and provide the best treatment so they can make the most money, you get substandard, lackluster care. You see it everywhere universal health care is offered. You see it here in America too, but the good outweighs the bad IMO.

How would UH undermine that? Under private insurance, doctors that are in the preferred network are going to have a set rate to follow. Not that different than a UH program might add. The desire to strive to be better would come from needing to draw as many patients in as they can handle.

As AZ said, no one has the 'right' to health care. If your to god damn worthless to get off your a** and work for your own benefit, why the hell should the government give a rats a** about you? Why should i have to pay the bill of some freeloader? Or some single mom living out of a trailer who decides to have 10 kids on welfare... Yea i really wana float that bill, i can see my money going to good use.

You lump all uninsured into a single category. And frankly, those people are likely already receiving aid from the government for healthcare. What about the small business owners who work their but off but can't get the great deals on insurance a large corporation can. Keep in mind that many who have certain types of medical history will have to pay higher premiums as insurers aren't under contract to have to insure everyone at the same rates. My parents actually fall into this category. And they work a hell of a lot harder than most people I know. What about the college kid whose parent's can't afford insurance? My GF has a pretty poor medical record and during her last semester of college, she could only take classes part time as there were no other classes she could take to fill up her schedule. Her parent's insurance no longer covered her. Thankfully it was a relatively short period, but due to the poor medical history, when we looked at individual insurance options, the premiums were very unreasonable.

I do believe that reform is needed, but frankly, this system does work. Its a sticky situation because how do you say well, you deserve this money for health care for your fam but this other fam doesnt because of X. IMO, there are a lot of people who dont deserve universal health care. There are enough people on this earth already. What happened to survival of the fittest? What happened to the laws of nature?

Survival of the fittest? You're trying to make assertions that a process of nature applies to society? Rediculous. If you want to use the the "theory" in the context in which it was conceived and used, then noone should receive any sort of medical treatment. Even the rich. Then we'll actually start weeding out the ones that are least fit.

As for too many people on this planet, no worries, experts indicate we will plateau later this century. And the biggest contributors to the growth will not be from developed countries. Its the under-developed ones that breed the most in order to increase survivorship as their death rates are much higher than of developed nations. In fact, some countries in Europe have already started seeing a decline in population.

It just infuriates me to think that there is a possibility of some low life that can say, smoke all his life then bleed US dry later in his life going through CPD/cardiac treatment.

The insurance premium you pay for now already includes them.

In addition, its stupid that this country focuses so much on treatment instead of prevention. As the adage goes.. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Not really that hard to stay healthy for most people. Even those with illnesses can do a LOT more than they probably do to benefit themselves. If the government wanted to do something smart, they would do a 'universal keep your a** healthy by doing this and not doing that' plan. Teach it to the kids, teach it to anyone who cares. Personalize it, make it a big deal. Pretty basic s*** really, but i mean I(probably we) take a lot of things for granted.

How much prevention can the population have if many can't afford even preventive care? Consider for a moment, that many people who have no insurance and/or can't afford to pay to see a doctor essentially wait until there is actually a problem before seeing a doctor. In which case, its possible it may be vastly more expensive to treat for than it would have been if it was diagnosed early. If said person can't pay for the treatment, then one way or another, the rest of society is likely to have to absorb that cost already. But the way I see it, its better that we pay for the preventive care rather than the expensive treatment when the patient is much further along in their illness.

I mean sometime in the future, maybe after we get ourselves into a stable platform we can revisit this issue. Im not against some sort of universal care for anyone under the age of 18, and think that the potential policy could prove to have some pretty nice benefits for society. Its amazing where you can find diamonds.

What do you mean by a stable platform?

While a part of me likes the idea of a somewhat socialistic society, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think that line was drawn when we crossed 10 trillion dollars worth of debt. We cant just simply pass the burdens of our X onto our children and let them sort it out.

If UH is actually a good thing then this argument holds no weight. Holding back on something that is beneficial would be passing our burdens onto our children. At this point, we've already incurred the debt we have. And while we should try to reduce that debt, making huge sacrifices in our children's benefits is not fair to them.

So your evidence is anecdotal, and about insurance rates. Seems to me that without direct proof there is no reason to believe the root cause is legal aspect rather than insurance itself. Either is equally likely without proof. Or, as said earlier, could it be the 'pay per procedure' policy of most hospitals? My point is that it is all speculation in the absence of concrete evidence.

If you are going to assert that medical liability isn't a significant portion, then you can't use a lack of evidence as proof against it. Try providing your own evidence. There are actually plenty of inferences to this. A basic google search hasn't yielded anything for me, but a search on an article database has a number of hits. Unfortunately, I can't post them here due to copyright laws and links won't work since you need a password. Ultimately, though, the argument made in what I found that there is quite a heavy premium burden on doctors due to the risk of malpractice suits. According to one of the reports, in 2004, a Florida county's OB/GYNs paid about $277K in premiums for a malpractice liability policy. To expand on the severity of lawsuits, the article was actually comparing the benefits of a capped settlement which CA has for non-economic damages. In Los Angeles County, OB/GYNs paid about $61K per year.

Adding to this, because of the high premiums, many doctors find themselves administering more tests and diagnostic procedures to protect themselves from such suits. There are indeed additional costs that patients would have to pay for as a result of having to pay for these additional tests and procedures. How much is directly associated with it? I have no idea. But I'd imagine its quite significant. Would I call it the root cause of our high costs. Nope. But we should not ignore it by any means.

I also know a personal experience of a friend of mine that displays how severe the liability issues can be. She is a nurse. Was working at a hospital when she had a medical issue herself. The hospital she worked at couldn't treat her for what was going on (I can't recall what it was exactly). In any case, the facility that could was across the parking lot. The hospital would not allow her to walk, or be taken across the parking lot in a wheelchair. They called an ambulance in order to truck her across the parking lot. Why? Because of the potential liability issues that could arise. Its unfortunate that we've allowed society to become so litigous that such an unreasonable step would need to be taken.

But here's how it works:

You get charged $1,000 dollars for, say, a CAT scan.Your insurance comes back to the hospital and says "No, we're only going to pay 50% of that, and you're going to take it and you're going to be happy."The hospital raises it's costs 50%.

Not true in most instances, in-network doctors are set up with fee schedules. So they know exactly what they will get. They do not have to opt to be a network doctor. But then they don't have to get some of the business that being a part of the network inherently brings in as insured seek out doctors that are part of their insurance company's network.

A very similar effect has occurred with body shops as well. Most seek out relationships with insurance companies and want to get on their preferred shop list. Many shops that do not do this end up struggling or eventually end up out of business. They agree to rates and certain protocol, but they save money in that they do not have to market as heavily.

Going outside the network can complicate things, but generally, any part of the costs that aren't covered are the customer's responsibility. Relatively few people will choose to do this as out of pocket expenses go up. Exceptions might be for more specialized services, but I'd speculate that even for specialty work, most people will opt for a provider that is part of the network to save money.

[hsckris]

As I said

My point is that it is all speculation in the absence of concrete evidence.

I'm not saying liability doesn't add to costs, I'm saying 1) I haven't seen any direct proof of what exactly we can or cannot save by adjusting liability, and I've looked. 2) There will never be a situation where there is no liability, nor should there be. 3) In the absence of proof we are just speculating. I could speculate that at best reducing med mal liability would only be a band-aid the same as you can speculate that it is the root cause of health care expense. Either is equally likely. If I had solid evidence, I'd post it... my point is that I don't know of any.

[PoorManQ45]

It is obvious that increased Doctor costs directly reflect the cost of service

If the price of gas/diesel(insurance) goes up milk(doctor) costs more.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

One of the problems I see is that in most places the option to eat healthier is more expensive then eating poorly.

If more people were able to afford healthy food I wonder if more people would eat healthier.

I don't care what other people eat. What is the price of good health? Maybe not buying those rimz for your car, maybe going without a cellphone, etc. Don't care what other people eat if it's not effecting me.

Not true in most instances, in-network doctors are set up with fee schedules. So they know exactly what they will get. They do not have to opt to be a network doctor. But then they don't have to get some of the business that being a part of the network inherently brings in as insured seek out doctors that are part of their insurance company's network.

A very similar effect has occurred with body shops as well. Most seek out relationships with insurance companies and want to get on their preferred shop list. Many shops that do not do this end up struggling or eventually end up out of business. They agree to rates and certain protocol, but they save money in that they do not have to market as heavily.

Going outside the network can complicate things, but generally, any part of the costs that aren't covered are the customer's responsibility. Relatively few people will choose to do this as out of pocket expenses go up. Exceptions might be for more specialized services, but I'd speculate that even for specialty work, most people will opt for a provider that is part of the network to save money.

Well, originally it went my way. Now the system has fully adapted to it. Still, insurance practices have raised the cost of healthcare (that and coupled with that fact that for medical prices, insurance is pretty much the same as easy mortgages were for home prices). When the insurance/mortgage bubble bursts, medical/home prices will fall.

[smockers83]

Well, originally it went my way. Now the system has fully adapted to it. Still, insurance practices have raised the cost of healthcare (that and coupled with that fact that for medical prices, insurance is pretty much the same as easy mortgages were for home prices). When the insurance/mortgage bubble bursts, medical/home prices will fall.

What is it that insurance companies have done that has increased the cost of health care? Because of the pool of cash that they generate? If insurance companies have increased the cost of health care, why are we creating a government insurance program? Seems counterproductive. I've said before that once government money gets involved in paying for health care in the form of UH or insurance program, medical costs will go up due to the amount of funds available as it is an inflationary policy.

If an insurance bubble existed like the mortgage situation, when the insurance bubble pops, it would be due to an oversupply of insurance or that Americans are overinsured. This doesn't make sense.

[PoorManQ45]

Our government will not do it right. Too much corruption.

Other governments can and do do it right.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

What is it that insurance companies have done that has increased the cost of health care? Because of the pool of cash that they generate? If insurance companies have increased the cost of health care, why are we creating a government insurance program? Seems counterproductive. I've said before that once government money gets involved in paying for health care in the form of UH or insurance program, medical costs will go up due to the amount of funds available as it is an inflationary policy.

Bingo.

[480sx]

But take a moment to actually read the link Tariq posted earlier.

I promise to do this when i have the time.

Please be clear as to the point you are making here.

That was just support for the argument that we have pretty damned good health care. The system sucks, but the care available is some of the best in the world.

Survival of the fittest? You're trying to make assertions that a process of nature applies to society? Rediculous.

No, its really not. 'Society' is ridiculous in its current state and needs no protection from my pocket. Society will take care of itself. Society is not going to fall apart because we dont have UH.

If you want to use the the "theory" in the context in which it was conceived and used, then noone should receive any sort of medical treatment. Even the rich.

What? Seriously?! Im reading from that, "If you want to use the 'Theory'(survival of the fittest, not really a theory) in the context in which it was conceived, then no one should receive any sort of medical treatment."

Ignoring my usage of the 'theory' to support my argument in this instance, which IMO is still on solid ground unless someone can prove otherwise, that statement is just retarded.. At one point in time, rich people made lots of money. They 'excelled' at 'surviving'. Some, just got lucky, but ignore those guys because they are a rarity. Therefore, by definition, they are the 'fittest' if you are to take this theory and apply it to the world that it exists in.......

Its also ridiculous because, lol, man.. Because we have evolved to what we are today, because of this 'theory' we now have made GIAGANTIC leaps in technology and well, simply health care for instance. Basically, your not looking at people like what they are. Mammals. Your putting them up on a pedestal, and not applying or even thinking about the 'theory' as it applies to human beings in specific. I could go on, but i feel that you should be able to understand where im coming from from just that.

Honestly, looonnngggg after **** sapiens are gone, you, and I are gone, survival of the fittest will still be in effect. If we blow the fvking inhabitable(by our species) world apart with nuclear fallout, guess what, the cockroach is king. You may chose to ignore its application to the human race, but that is IMO taking a personally held belief about human beings in general and ignoring reality.

What do you mean by a stable platform?

The world is nuts. Im not sure if you'v noticed. If we can get the world(hell, just the USA FFS) to stop being stupid/crazy, then we might be able to achieve a 'stable platform'.

There is more in your post that i will revisit later.
Modified by 480sx at 9:48 AM 7/9/2009

[C-Kwik]

As I said

I'm not saying liability doesn't add to costs, I'm saying 1) I haven't seen any direct proof of what exactly we can or cannot save by adjusting liability, and I've looked. 2) There will never be a situation where there is no liability, nor should there be. 3) In the absence of proof we are just speculating. I could speculate that at best reducing med mal liability would only be a band-aid the same as you can speculate that it is the root cause of health care expense. Either is equally likely. If I had solid evidence, I'd post it... my point is that I don't know of any.

A lack of proof doesn't indicate that the problem isn't there. While I agree evidence should be presented to make the point, you're venturing off the topic and softly suggesting other possibilities as well. If you want proof, simply ask.

That said, here's a public cite I ran across that has some facts about it. They include citations if you want to scrutinize it some:

http://www.facs.org/ahp/whyitsgood.html

But I do believe, based on what I've seen, that a significant portion of the rise in healthcare costs is directly attributed to the risks for malpractice.

Well, originally it went my way. Now the system has fully adapted to it. Still, insurance practices have raised the cost of healthcare (that and coupled with that fact that for medical prices, insurance is pretty much the same as easy mortgages were for home prices). When the insurance/mortgage bubble bursts, medical/home prices will fall.

How have insurance practices increased costs? Please elaborate specifically.

That was just support for the argument that we have pretty damned good health care. The system sucks, but the care available is some of the best in the world.

Probelm is, it doesn't necessarily prove anything. Its great technology and all, but what does that have anything to do with universal healthcare or our current healthcare system. Much of the R&D in the medical field is handled privately at this point. Many through foundations and organizations that raise the money for such research. Some discoveries probably do occur at doctor's offices and such, but most high end stuff like linear accelerators are done at the research level.

No, its really not. 'Society' is ridiculous in its current state and needs no protection from my pocket. Society will take care of itself. Society is not going to fall apart because we dont have UH.

What? Seriously?! Im reading from that, "If you want to use the 'Theory'(survival of the fittest, not really a theory) in the context in which it was conceived, then no one should receive any sort of medical treatment."

Ignoring my usage of the 'theory' to support my argument in this instance, which IMO is still on solid ground unless someone can prove otherwise, that statement is just retarded.. At one point in time, rich people made lots of money. They 'excelled' at 'surviving'. Some, just got lucky, but ignore those guys because they are a rarity. Therefore, by definition, they are the 'fittest' if you are to take this theory and apply it to the world that it exists in.......

Economic survival of the fittest logic has very little in common with the evolutionary version. First of all being rich isn't necessarily tied into being more "fit". Money can easily have been handed off by parent's. Someone can win the lottery or a big payout at the slots in Vegas. Someone could have won a malpractice suit. Someone could have sued a celebrity under false charges. You might cite educated people are more likely to succeed, and I agree that is true, but many people are not educated because it wasn't economically preactical. Or they were born to a local society that provides a hostile environment for learning. Perhaps even discouraging it altogether. There are many circumstances that have a big factor in a person's success.

The point is, applying a survival of the fittest kind of logic from an ecomonic standpoint does not work. The point about noone receiving medical treatment had to do with the biological one as our ability to treat many illnesses actually works against evolution. That is, since we are boosting the survival rates for people who would otherwise have died, or been unable to reproduce (perhaps as much as the next person) means the "natural selection" process is being thwarted. For a funny and way over the top example, watch "Idiocracy". In any case, it was meant to be a sartcastic retort to your argument showing how rediculous the logic is...

Its also ridiculous because, lol, man.. Because we have evolved to what we are today, because of this 'theory' we now have made GIAGANTIC leaps in technology and well, simply health care for instance. Basically, your not looking at people like what they are. Mammals. Your putting them up on a pedestal, and not applying or even thinking about the 'theory' as it applies to human beings in specific. I could go on, but i feel that you should be able to understand where im coming from from just that.

What were are today in terms of evolution is not much different than we were 2,000 years ago. We've been able to explode as a population and come to our technological advances, not as a result of any biological evolution, but the fact that we are able to educate and pass on our education as building blocks for each successive generation. This has been the case for all human history.

Honestly, looonnngggg after **** sapiens are gone, you, and I are gone, survival of the fittest will still be in effect. If we blow the fvking inhabitable(by our species) world apart with nuclear fallout, guess what, the cockroach is king. You may chose to ignore its application to the human race, but that is IMO taking a personally held belief about human beings in general and ignoring reality.

I do not ignore evolution one bit. Its a biological concept. Not an economic one. Those that used the concepts (city bosses during the industrial era) did so to justify their riches and their ability to treat their workers like crap.

The world is nuts. Im not sure if you'v noticed. If we can get the world(hell, just the USA FFS) to stop being stupid/crazy, then we might be able to achieve a 'stable platform'.

The world has always been this way. And probably always will. If we waited for the perfect or ideal cisrcumstances everytime something needed to get done, nothing ever would...

[heliochrome85]

there are doctors in PA (OB/GYN) who have given up birthing babies because of the cost of malpractice insurance. If yout hink about it, if a child comes out mentally handicapped, who is the jury going to listen to, the poor mother/child, or the big bad rich doctor?

[hsckris]

A lack of proof doesn't indicate that the problem isn't there. While I agree evidence should be presented to make the point, you're venturing off the topic and softly suggesting other possibilities as well. If you want proof, simply ask.

I basically did ask for proof. I never said or implied that a lack of proof meant a problem didn't exist. I believe my points were quite clear.

From your cite: "Doctors spent $6.3 billion last year on medical liability coverage."What I want to know: How much would the doctors spend if we had med mal reform? What exactly can be achieved by reform (in consideration of the fact that there will always be liability of some kind)? That is what I have yet to see hard numbers on.

But I do believe, based on what I've seen, that a significant portion of the rise in healthcare costs is directly attributed to the risks for malpractice.

It is all well and good to talk about increased costs, but without hard numbers on what exactly will be achieved by med mal reform, you simply cannot say the reform is necessary to cheaper administration. I'm not arguing that there aren't specific instances of abuse in med mal cases, but I am questioning how anyone can say it must be reformed without accurate evidence of what will be saved by said reform.