chpmnsws6

iTrader: (12)

To think, I just made this thread as a joke about not being able to spank it.

About health care- where are the cuts going to come from to make it more affordable? If you take the cuts from the doctors, you'll have far less, who are also less qualified. Less will get into the field, and more will get out. They are already jumping ship in HUGE amounts due to all the newer rules and regs.

Same goes for support staff. If you cut an RN's pay, you'll see a HUGE drop of RN's in an already mass shortage. Cut the assistance pay, and you'll see the same. I'm not going to clean your 96 yr old grandmothers *** every 30 minutes because you and the doctor decided to give her tPA to bust the clot in her brain, which also busted the clot in her lower GI for minimum wage. I'll go back to wrenching or farming.

So again I ask, where do you plan to cut the price?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

You act as if the only place to cut costs is by cutting jobs and pay. This is far from the problem. The big problem is basic inefficiencies in the system. The best way to cure these problems is for insurance companies to structure their payout systems to reward cost reductions and increases in efficiency on the part of the medical manufacturer, hospital, or private practice. This would be similar to a bussiness with a profit sharing plan. The easiest way to motivate people to produce quality results is with money or benefits.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

This would create more competetiom for cheaper medicine, cheaper treatments,etc. The same idea that drives any business. The only real difference is how income is derived. So you just design thecrevenue stream around this idea

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Chp: Well, here's a major flaw in the system, at least where I live.

If a doctor orders a test, he is paid on that. He's not paid on salary, or on whatever, he's paid based on how many tests he orders, how many patients he sees, etc..

Tell me, when you base someone's pay based on how many (expensive) tests they order, what are they going to do?

There are deep flaws throughout our medical system. If, say, someone orders a 2.5k test and gets paid $100 for it, yeah, that's another source of rising costs.

Another great example is the ridiculous amount of money the AMA and similar associations end up costing - and doctor's don't have an option. They have to deal with their BS, their educational requirements, etc. etc.

Some of the problems are from the government, sure. But some also aren't. I would go so far as to argue that the cumulative affects of non-government medical inflation costs are higher than governmental medical inflation costs in fact.

This is an interesting idea, but I'd wonder how actual implementation of it would go?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

A simple way to implement it would be for insurance companies to yearly establish the current average cost of a given medical service which is what they already do to account for premiums. Then reward anyone who can provide it for under that cost with profit sharing on the savings. This is a simple overview of the general idea. It would be more complex but thats the overall idea

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

This is a really good idea I think, but I am certain someone here is going to poke a hole in it.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Probably from the perception that programs which are administered by either a state or federal government tend to be (pick one or more):

• Inefficiently / Ineptly administered (DMV, EPA, etc)
• Wasteful (eg: $3,000 toilet seat)
• Poorly managed and in need of constant bailing-out (Social Security)
• Susceptible to abuse and graft (welfare, food stamps, etc)
• Worse than the commercial alternative (public housing, public transportation, etc)

I'm not passing judgement or saying that any or all of the above are true, only that they are commonly perceived to be true, and everything in a "democratic" society is about perception.


The system we have now isn't all that great either. Private insurance, by definition, adds overhead. It has to, since people are employed by insurance companies, to say nothing of stock dividends.

Now, that overhead is tolerable when we use insurance solely for casualty mitigation, which was its original intent. Eg, we carry auto insurance in case our car is stolen or we get into a wreck, but we wouldn't dream of submitting an insurance claim for an oil change or new tires. And we carry homeowners insurance in case the house is burglarized or burns down, but we don't file homeowners claims every time we have to replace a leaky faucet or an old furnace.

In other words, insurance allows everyone to pay a little bit into a common pool that will be drawn from in the statistically unlikely event that any one single individual loses their house in a fire or has their car stolen.

The trouble is that, with healthcare, we seem to want to pass everything through an insurance company.

Case in point: several months ago I went to CVS to get a flu shot. One of the first questions they asked me was for my insurance card.

Huh? This is a $25 flu shot. Why on earth would I expect my health insurance to cover this?

The same holds true for damn near every medical procedure. I go to the doctor for checkup, and if I want I can submit that to my insurance and just pay a $40 co-pay. If I had ****, then I could go get a mammogram and the insurance would cover that. The list goes on.

And yeah, I'm aware of the argument that by covering trivial little shіt like this, the insurance company ultimately saves money by preventing me from getting pneumonia, or developing breast cancer, or whatever.

But that doesn't make the numbers work!

The problem is that if everyone expects insurance to pay for everything, then ultimately insurance "pays" for nothing. All they do is pass 100% of the costs straight back to you, along with a markup for their profit margin. It's not distributed liability anymore, it's just a middleman.


Insurance only "works" when it is reserved for catastrophic events, and everyday costs come out of pocket. If I contract spinal neurocysticercosis and wind up in the hospital for two weeks, then I'll file an insurance claim. If I get shot in the knee with an arrow and require reconstructive surgery and extensive physical therapy, then I'll file an insurance claim.

If I'm going in for a routine prostate exam, that's not something insurance is supposed to cover.



And that's why the system is "broken."

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

That is a very solid point. However, the majority of this country is under the impression that the best medical care available is a right not a privelage.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

All in all it again goes back to the entitlement mentality. Just because this is the richest nation in the world should not mean you don't have to work your *** off for everything you get. How do people think we became such a rich nation to begin with

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Because after WWI and WWII we were the last major industrialized nation to still have it's manufacturing capability. It has little to do with the American work ethic, and more to do with America's emergence as a first world nation and the after-affects of the World Wars. It's not like the country suddenly underwent a mass influx of laziness and indolence - our country really hasn't changed that much in the past hundred years from the perspective you refer to, beyond the political system getting more and more radicalized.

As an example, think of how heroin was available at a pharmacist's counter for sale to anyone, even a 5 year old, who wanted it. Suddenly, after decades/a century, the US government decided they needed to outlaw and regulate that and other narcotics. It's not that addicts appeared out of nowhere, let me tell you, or that the problems we have now with addiction are any different then it was decades or centuries ago.

P.S. Joe, you deserve a proper response to that -amazing- post, but it will take me some time

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

The only reason I voted for Obama is because he is mixed race, like me. Seriously.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

"The films will go on: **** titans not worried about Santorum"

Santorum wants to ban internet ****. He will not be getting my vote.
citation

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

This election is just....I don't even know.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, I know.

Santorum: Pretty much the Pope, doesn't really like the separation of church and state, hates **** & thus freedom of expression.
Romney: Indecisive Mormon Pope
Paul: Not gonna get the nomination.
Newt: Weirdo, named 'Newt', it didn't work out for him 15 years ago, why would it now as pres? Left 2 sick wives.
Obamer: Lots of 'meh', big unknown on guns, but at least he doesn't hate teh gays & stuff.

*DING DING DING* WE HAVE A WINNER

That's how I decided who I'm voting for.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Yeah, that's not going to happen. It's too bad America won't elect an 80-year old man.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I'm only in my 30's, what to my seniors think about how this class of candidates compared to previous years? Even though I was a liberal previously, I don't remember either side looking as pathetic as the Republicans in 2012.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Do you know who you're voting for? People like you and viper are hard to figure out. I can't see either of you voting for somebody who pushes their socially conservative (religious) views, and I know you ain't the biggest fan of Obama.
Write in?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I will not vote for Obama. I prefer Romney over Santorum solely because I cannot listen to Santorum preach four years. The aggressive indoctrination strategy of Santorum frightens me, but not more than Obama's fiscal policies. If Santorum would spend more time discussing the economy and the nations dependence on welfare, he might get my vote. However, it's not a vote I will be proud of. I would certainly vote for Newt.

The scariest part about voting for Santorum is the logic that we'd have to vote for him again for his second term if the first came to fruition. I think the GOP needs to get serious and come up with a new candidate and I'm not joking. With Romney and Santorum as the sole choices, this party can't win in November.

JasonC SBB

Why anyone would even consider SANSCROTUM is beyond me.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

Probably not going to vote. Which, honestly, really depresses me.

I cannot vote for Obama. The dismantlement of our space program was a national embarrassment and the recent talks of taking away benefits for soldiers, active and retired, is disgraceful. I wanted to dig my head into the sand after he awarded the Medal of Honor to a dead soldier as if he was still alive....in front of that soldier's family and the entire 10th Mountain.

That is not a man of character. That is inexcusable.