Long live Obamacare
07-02-2012, 12:57 PM
#181
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
And on top of that, they could only be installed by someone who spent an inordinate amount of time training to do brakes on every possible vehicle under every conceivable set of conditions.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 02:16 PM
#183
And auto-insurers were not allowed to raise prices to insure vehicles that no longer had manufacturer parts support, imagine how much it would cost to replace failed wheel hubs in 80 year old cars. What if auto-insurers couldn't "pull the plug" on a car and total it? What if they were required by law to pay to repair everything to 100% OEM specification regardless of vehicle age? Oh-crap, I drove my '63 split-window through a level-3 snow emergency and wrecked it - insurance will fix it. What if, instead of providing my credit card to the gas-pump, I inserted my insurance card? Does Jiffy-Lube accept Allstate, or do I need to go to the Valvoline Express instead? Do you total a brand new car on average about every 3 months? That's okay, we're not allowed to deny you coverage, and you get the same rate as your 50-year-old neighbor who has never had an accident in his life
Yeah, if auto insurers were required to cover as much as health insurers are, there would be a TON of Americans riding bicycles to work, but that's okay, becaues the federal government would charge you a penalty for not having auto-insurance so that they could pay for the idiots who kill bicyclists.
Yeah, if auto insurers were required to cover as much as health insurers are, there would be a TON of Americans riding bicycles to work, but that's okay, becaues the federal government would charge you a penalty for not having auto-insurance so that they could pay for the idiots who kill bicyclists.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 03:07 PM
#186
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
and they also are forced to repair peop.. cars who drift and ruin their cars on purpose and lead alternative lifestyles.
i think they call it man babies or something.
i think they call it man babies or something.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 03:29 PM
#187
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
How many of you guys would support a repeal of EMTALA (the law that requires ERs to treat patients with critical emergencies)? To be clear, a repeal of EMTALA would allow hospitals to turn away patients with life-threatening injuries who did not have the ability to pay for those injuries.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 03:37 PM
#188
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
I would, after, and only after, a whole bunch of other anti-competitive regulations were removed first.
Removing anti-competitive regulations would make health care as a whole less expensive for everyone. In the 1960s, before EMTALA, ER's in general did NOT turn away patients who did not have insurance. The reason for this is that such patients were NOT a big drain on hospitals' finances, because a higher % of folks had catastrophic insurance (which was inexpensive back then), because hospitals didn't cost as much back then (a result of decades of anti-competitive regulation), and they weren't squeezed by Medicare such that they had to make up the difference by charging uninsured folks the highest rate in a tiered price system. Back then hospitals and doctors routinely gave away a small % of their time to charity.
Whenever the gov't meddles in any industry, it increases costs and reduces quality, which then tends to create more calls for regulation... and you get a spiral.
Removing anti-competitive regulations would make health care as a whole less expensive for everyone. In the 1960s, before EMTALA, ER's in general did NOT turn away patients who did not have insurance. The reason for this is that such patients were NOT a big drain on hospitals' finances, because a higher % of folks had catastrophic insurance (which was inexpensive back then), because hospitals didn't cost as much back then (a result of decades of anti-competitive regulation), and they weren't squeezed by Medicare such that they had to make up the difference by charging uninsured folks the highest rate in a tiered price system. Back then hospitals and doctors routinely gave away a small % of their time to charity.
Whenever the gov't meddles in any industry, it increases costs and reduces quality, which then tends to create more calls for regulation... and you get a spiral.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 03:51 PM
#189
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
One time my friend was choking on a Everlasting Gobstopper. I performed the Himlick [sp?} manuever and removed said obstruction from his airways.
I never once asked for payment.
think about it.
I also donate to animal clinics.
I never once asked for payment.
think about it.
I also donate to animal clinics.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 04:23 PM
#192
I would, after, and only after, a whole bunch of other anti-competitive regulations were removed first.
Removing anti-competitive regulations would make health care as a whole less expensive for everyone. In the 1960s, before EMTALA, ER's in general did NOT turn away patients who did not have insurance. The reason for this is that such patients were NOT a big drain on hospitals' finances, because a higher % of folks had catastrophic insurance (which was inexpensive back then), because hospitals didn't cost as much back then (a result of decades of anti-competitive regulation), and they weren't squeezed by Medicare such that they had to make up the difference by charging uninsured folks the highest rate in a tiered price system. Back then hospitals and doctors routinely gave away a small % of their time to charity.
Whenever the gov't meddles in any industry, it increases costs and reduces quality, which then tends to create more calls for regulation... and you get a spiral.
Removing anti-competitive regulations would make health care as a whole less expensive for everyone. In the 1960s, before EMTALA, ER's in general did NOT turn away patients who did not have insurance. The reason for this is that such patients were NOT a big drain on hospitals' finances, because a higher % of folks had catastrophic insurance (which was inexpensive back then), because hospitals didn't cost as much back then (a result of decades of anti-competitive regulation), and they weren't squeezed by Medicare such that they had to make up the difference by charging uninsured folks the highest rate in a tiered price system. Back then hospitals and doctors routinely gave away a small % of their time to charity.
Whenever the gov't meddles in any industry, it increases costs and reduces quality, which then tends to create more calls for regulation... and you get a spiral.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 04:42 PM
#193
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
I would, after, and only after, a whole bunch of other anti-competitive regulations were removed first.
Removing anti-competitive regulations would make health care as a whole less expensive for everyone. In the 1960s, before EMTALA, ER's in general did NOT turn away patients who did not have insurance. The reason for this is that such patients were NOT a big drain on hospitals' finances, because a higher % of folks had catastrophic insurance (which was inexpensive back then), because hospitals didn't cost as much back then (a result of decades of anti-competitive regulation), and they weren't squeezed by Medicare such that they had to make up the difference by charging uninsured folks the highest rate in a tiered price system. Back then hospitals and doctors routinely gave away a small % of their time to charity.
Whenever the gov't meddles in any industry, it increases costs and reduces quality, which then tends to create more calls for regulation... and you get a spiral.
Removing anti-competitive regulations would make health care as a whole less expensive for everyone. In the 1960s, before EMTALA, ER's in general did NOT turn away patients who did not have insurance. The reason for this is that such patients were NOT a big drain on hospitals' finances, because a higher % of folks had catastrophic insurance (which was inexpensive back then), because hospitals didn't cost as much back then (a result of decades of anti-competitive regulation), and they weren't squeezed by Medicare such that they had to make up the difference by charging uninsured folks the highest rate in a tiered price system. Back then hospitals and doctors routinely gave away a small % of their time to charity.
Whenever the gov't meddles in any industry, it increases costs and reduces quality, which then tends to create more calls for regulation... and you get a spiral.
He was telling me how good the healthcare system is in Costa Rica you can walk into any clinic and get care easily.
Knowing nothing about it myself I looked at what System Costa Rica has. Sure enough it is a Government run health care system citizens are forced to pay into by an amount proportional to income. Average price is less than $50 a month. Private insurance is available and non-government clinics are available but the state of the art medical care on par with the US is in the government run clinics and at a considerably lower cost. Everyone is covered with no out of pocket cost.
Bob
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 04:48 PM
#194
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
Sounds like a fantasy. Got links?
When I was in Taiwan having dinner with a customer and our Sales pukes, said customer got a fishbone stuck in his throat. After dinner we went to a small cash-only clinic with a doctor and a nurse. It was 9 PM and removing the fishbone was a 5 minute procedure and $20 IIRC. That's the free market in action. This doctor decided he wanted to make some bux opening a walk-in clinic that stayed open late. Few regulations that stop doctors from setting up little clinics like that. Try doing that in an ER here, see how much they charge.
When I was in Taiwan having dinner with a customer and our Sales pukes, said customer got a fishbone stuck in his throat. After dinner we went to a small cash-only clinic with a doctor and a nurse. It was 9 PM and removing the fishbone was a 5 minute procedure and $20 IIRC. That's the free market in action. This doctor decided he wanted to make some bux opening a walk-in clinic that stayed open late. Few regulations that stop doctors from setting up little clinics like that. Try doing that in an ER here, see how much they charge.
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 07-02-2012 at 05:51 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 05:20 PM
#195
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 491
Total Cats: 32
If there is one thing I don't want the "free market" regulating it's health care. To pull out a fish bone? I'd imagine one of those urgent care places could take care of it. Looking at my insurance card it would have cost me $40, $150 if I went to the ER.
Re. EMTALA, ---- no to repealing it.
Re. EMTALA, ---- no to repealing it.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 05:21 PM
#196
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
To pull out a fish bone? I'd imagine one of those urgent care places could take care of it. Looking at my insurance card it would have cost me $40, $150 if I went to the ER.
Why is it that the free market is brilliant at making cellphones and computers ever better and cheaper, and somehow, when it comes to health care, it isn't? Can you theorize why?
Last edited by JasonC SBB; 07-02-2012 at 05:52 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 05:35 PM
#197
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Also much of the technology was born directly out of expenditures and programs of the US Federal government for computing the internet and GPS navigation. Many things would have never got off the ground as quickly as they did. The US has second rate internet connectivity simply because it is not viewed as a public utility like it is in other countries.
Bob
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 05:40 PM
#198
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 491
Total Cats: 32
Many reasons.
Healthcare, especially emergent care, is not anywhere near free. It's a natural monopoly in the vast majority of this country. Multiple hospitals providing complex care aren't going to be feasible for anywhere except urban areas. Restrict that to hospitals that are close enough to take emergency calls and it's even less. When I lived in Jersey, the densest state in the union, I rarely had a choice of more than 2 hospitals to bring a patent to. While I could have, and would have if the patent demanded it, driven to anywhere there just aren't that many hospitals around. Factor in hospitals that are trauma centers or ones that have a cath lab and the amount of potentials plummits. Cell phones you could buy any manufacturer on pretty much any carrier from anywhere.
People are far from rational when making decisions about health. That is why there are laws requiring informed consent, not just consent. Manipulation to lead people to the most profitable outcome would be trivial in cases like this. Cell phones you can take as long as you'd like to research and figure out exactly what plan/phone suits you the best.
Massive barrier to entry, hospitals aren't cheap. Your simple doc in the box case confuses me a bit because they are all over the place where I've lived. (NJ and NC) I'd imagine the only reason there aren't any late night ones is because there is little to no demand for it, not some regulation preventing them from being open at night.
And that's not even getting into the issue of allowing a corporation to decide what an acceptable level of risk is. Implant a device that may fail catastrophically in 5 years? Well I'll be retired in 5 years so sure, go ahead and implant away, not going to be my problem when it blows up.
Healthcare, especially emergent care, is not anywhere near free. It's a natural monopoly in the vast majority of this country. Multiple hospitals providing complex care aren't going to be feasible for anywhere except urban areas. Restrict that to hospitals that are close enough to take emergency calls and it's even less. When I lived in Jersey, the densest state in the union, I rarely had a choice of more than 2 hospitals to bring a patent to. While I could have, and would have if the patent demanded it, driven to anywhere there just aren't that many hospitals around. Factor in hospitals that are trauma centers or ones that have a cath lab and the amount of potentials plummits. Cell phones you could buy any manufacturer on pretty much any carrier from anywhere.
People are far from rational when making decisions about health. That is why there are laws requiring informed consent, not just consent. Manipulation to lead people to the most profitable outcome would be trivial in cases like this. Cell phones you can take as long as you'd like to research and figure out exactly what plan/phone suits you the best.
Massive barrier to entry, hospitals aren't cheap. Your simple doc in the box case confuses me a bit because they are all over the place where I've lived. (NJ and NC) I'd imagine the only reason there aren't any late night ones is because there is little to no demand for it, not some regulation preventing them from being open at night.
And that's not even getting into the issue of allowing a corporation to decide what an acceptable level of risk is. Implant a device that may fail catastrophically in 5 years? Well I'll be retired in 5 years so sure, go ahead and implant away, not going to be my problem when it blows up.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 05:41 PM
#199
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Sounds like a fantasy. Got links?
When I was in Taiwan having dinner with a customer and our Sales pukes, said customer got a fishbone stuck in his throat. After dinner we went to a small clinic with a doctor and a nurse. It was 9 PM and removing the fishbone was a 5 minute procedure and $20 IIRC. That's the free market in action. This doctor decided he wanted to make some bux opening a walk-in clinic that stayed open late. Few regulations that stop doctors from setting up little clinics like that. Try doing that in an ER here, see how much they charge.
When I was in Taiwan having dinner with a customer and our Sales pukes, said customer got a fishbone stuck in his throat. After dinner we went to a small clinic with a doctor and a nurse. It was 9 PM and removing the fishbone was a 5 minute procedure and $20 IIRC. That's the free market in action. This doctor decided he wanted to make some bux opening a walk-in clinic that stayed open late. Few regulations that stop doctors from setting up little clinics like that. Try doing that in an ER here, see how much they charge.
Reply
0
0
07-02-2012, 07:03 PM
#200
Many reasons.
Healthcare, especially emergent care, is not anywhere near free. It's a natural monopoly in the vast majority of this country. The monopoly is not natural, in natural conditions, a less expensive hospital would pop-up next door to the first hospital offering the same care for less Multiple hospitals providing complex care aren't going to be feasible for anywhere except urban areas. Multiple "hospitals" are feasible in small towns, in a free market, most small towns should have between 2 and 5 independent medical facilities with at least 1 to 2 of them operating as an emergency vet center operates - with minimum staff "on-call" for late night emergencies, these smaller independent medical facilities would be able to handle 95-99% of the medical emergencies in that town, with 1-5% of emergencies going to the larger city facilities. Restrict that to hospitals that are close enough to take emergency calls and it's even less. When I lived in Jersey, the densest state in the union, I rarely had a choice of more than 2 hospitals to bring a patent to. While I could have, and would have if the patent demanded it, driven to anywhere there just aren't that many hospitals around. Factor in hospitals that are trauma centers or ones that have a cath lab and the amount of potentials plummits.Cell phones you could buy any manufacturer on pretty much any carrier from anywhere.
People are far from rational when making decisions about health. Absolutely true That is why there are laws requiring informed consent, not just consent. Manipulation to lead people to the most profitable outcome would be trivial in cases like this. The "free market" medical facility has fee-schedules publically and easily available so that consumers can compare prices, it's in the interest of the medical facility to charge less for a given service than the other facilities in the area. This helps lead to consumer "favoritism" towards a given hospital based on perceived value of services which helps the consumer decide which hospital to go to in an emergency when there is no time to compare fee schedulesCell phones you can take as long as you'd like to research and figure out exactly what plan/phone suits you the best.
Massive barrier to entry, hospitals aren't cheap. Your simple doc in the box case confuses me a bit because they are all over the place where I've lived. (NJ and NC) I'd imagine the only reason there aren't any late night ones is because there is little to no demand for it, not some regulation preventing them from being open at night. This probably has mostly to do with private practice doctors not wanting to spend their evenings/weekends on call than anything, smaller staffs can manage small case loads on call, but it is definitely easier to require your employees to work call-shifts at 30 doctors / 200 staff than it would be with 3 doctors / 8 staff - doctors don't like working late nights.
And that's not even getting into the issue of allowing a corporation to decide what an acceptable level of risk is. Implant a device that may fail catastrophically in 5 years? Well I'll be retired in 5 years so sure, go ahead and implant away, not going to be my problem when it blows up.
Healthcare, especially emergent care, is not anywhere near free. It's a natural monopoly in the vast majority of this country. The monopoly is not natural, in natural conditions, a less expensive hospital would pop-up next door to the first hospital offering the same care for less Multiple hospitals providing complex care aren't going to be feasible for anywhere except urban areas. Multiple "hospitals" are feasible in small towns, in a free market, most small towns should have between 2 and 5 independent medical facilities with at least 1 to 2 of them operating as an emergency vet center operates - with minimum staff "on-call" for late night emergencies, these smaller independent medical facilities would be able to handle 95-99% of the medical emergencies in that town, with 1-5% of emergencies going to the larger city facilities. Restrict that to hospitals that are close enough to take emergency calls and it's even less. When I lived in Jersey, the densest state in the union, I rarely had a choice of more than 2 hospitals to bring a patent to. While I could have, and would have if the patent demanded it, driven to anywhere there just aren't that many hospitals around. Factor in hospitals that are trauma centers or ones that have a cath lab and the amount of potentials plummits.
People are far from rational when making decisions about health. Absolutely true That is why there are laws requiring informed consent, not just consent. Manipulation to lead people to the most profitable outcome would be trivial in cases like this. The "free market" medical facility has fee-schedules publically and easily available so that consumers can compare prices, it's in the interest of the medical facility to charge less for a given service than the other facilities in the area. This helps lead to consumer "favoritism" towards a given hospital based on perceived value of services which helps the consumer decide which hospital to go to in an emergency when there is no time to compare fee schedules
Massive barrier to entry, hospitals aren't cheap. Your simple doc in the box case confuses me a bit because they are all over the place where I've lived. (NJ and NC) I'd imagine the only reason there aren't any late night ones is because there is little to no demand for it, not some regulation preventing them from being open at night. This probably has mostly to do with private practice doctors not wanting to spend their evenings/weekends on call than anything, smaller staffs can manage small case loads on call, but it is definitely easier to require your employees to work call-shifts at 30 doctors / 200 staff than it would be with 3 doctors / 8 staff - doctors don't like working late nights.
And that's not even getting into the issue of allowing a corporation to decide what an acceptable level of risk is. Implant a device that may fail catastrophically in 5 years? Well I'll be retired in 5 years so sure, go ahead and implant away, not going to be my problem when it blows up.
Reply
0
0
