Health Care
 

Hawke wrote:
Lets not get sidetracked into the health insurance debate for it
masks
the underlying problem. The fundamental problem is that our
health
care
system has been hijacked by corporate powers making healthcare
too
expensive.
Nonsense. The main thing that makes it so expensive is that
medical
technology marches forward, not backward, and there's always more
stuff
to
apply to medical problems -- increasingly expensive stuff.
That is one factor but there are many others such as malpractice
insurance
but the overriding component is that a corporate monopoly has
seized
control of the industry at large.
Sure, Curley, malpractice insurance is a factor, and there are many
other
factors. It's not a single thing that's done all of it. But if you
spend
some time sorting out where the costs are you'll see that most of it
boils
down to the fact that doctors can -- and do -- employ more expensive
drugs,
procedures, and so on.
I don't agree. It's all about treating a population and most of the
population is healthy and doesn't require a lot of expensive
procedures
and
medications. I think some amazing amount of health care dollars are
spent
on
people in the last five years of their lives and something like the
last
six
months equals more than what they spent on health care in their
entire
lives. So most people are not getting a lot of expensive procedures
that
cost an arm and a leg. g
It doesn't matter. The expensive procedures and pills ($850 per person)
are
still being used, no matter who they're being used on. That's why our
fundamental health costs are so high and getting higher.

--
Ed Huntress

I think everyone knows that as time passes and improvements in medicine
and
technology occur it causes things to cost more. What I'm saying is that
isn't the root cause of all the increases in our health care.
Of course not. But it's the driver for everything else.

If it just
cost more for all the newfangled high tech stuff you couldn't blame the
10%
a year increase in health care costs on that. The truth is most of the
costs
come from other areas. One of which is having to care for a continually
increasing group of impoverished illegal aliens. Another area is the
increasing inefficiency of the whole system. You have to look at all the
reasons for the continuous increases in costs. New procedures, hardware,
and
medicine is only a small part of it.
You'll have to document that before I'll believe it. I've already been
through this exercise, when I was a medical editor.

It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new
technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of
opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length, is
that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards and
expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we
use
it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more; we're
under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still
more.

--
Ed Huntress

No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his
shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if he
didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong. That
probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least. That sort of thing happens all the time
but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred. But I
have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff. The
prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is no
rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room is
more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons. You take someone
with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people who
need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a big
time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for.
What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for the
people who aren't covered by insurance. That and the needless duplication,
profit, and administrative waste. The bottom line is that what's happening
now can't be sustained. We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let
that happen.


As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up
and quality went down.

You need alternative forms of medicine.



Hawke




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Health Care
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:17:05 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
There is no
rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room is
more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons.
snip
-------
This is "Robin Hood" universal health care, where those with
money pay for not only their own health care, but also the care
for several others, either in full or partially.

The Four Seasons is not under governmental mandate to put up for
the night anyone that shows up and needs a room, regardless of
their ability to pay. The Four Seasons may offer some discounts
from their "list prices," but not for large fractions of their
guests.

Note that in many cases the person who pays the full skippie, is
helping out the needy corporations who have managed to foist off
their retiree health coverage onto the taxpayers through
medicare, and medicare is not making full actual cost
reimbursement.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
 

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:03:19 -0700, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did
the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't.
snip
-------
It's far more likely they were both involved in the heist and
they are trying to "rat out" each other as part of a plea deal.

Off with both their heads and let god sort'em out.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Health Care
 

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"strabo" wrote in message
...

snip


As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up
and quality went down.

According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in
parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike
corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on
this page:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317



You need alternative forms of medicine.

I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch
doctor. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


HMO's were a big cause. People went to the doctor for more stuff. Kid has
a cold, go to the hospital. etc. Plus the rest of the world pretty much
rips off our medical research and gets the use without paying for the
research. Plus go to the emergency room and they run a large battery of
tests just so they can defend themselves in malpractice suits. Plus the
paperwork required by insurance and government regulations adds a huge
burden.

Health Care
 

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"strabo" wrote in message
...

snip


As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up
and quality went down.

According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in
parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike
corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on
this page:

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317



You need alternative forms of medicine.

I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch
doctor. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


HMO's were a big cause. People went to the doctor for more stuff. Kid
has a cold, go to the hospital. etc. Plus the rest of the world pretty
much rips off our medical research and gets the use without paying for the
research. Plus go to the emergency room and they run a large battery of
tests just so they can defend themselves in malpractice suits. Plus the
paperwork required by insurance and government regulations adds a huge
burden.

Yeah, but the trick is to put numbers on those pieces and to see which
one(s) really matter. It's a little like earmarks in the federal budget:
they get us ****ed off, and they encourage some bad behavior on the part of
Congress. But in terms of relative costs, they're a drop in the bucket:
earmarks amount to 6% of total discretionary spending, or less than 1/4 of
the INTEREST, alone, on the national debt.

So it's hard to keep these things in perspective. Health care is a lot
harder to pick apart than some other spending, but the ones that are the
really big items surprise most people.

I'll leave aside for the moment what those items are. It would be like
giving away the end to a movie. g

--
Ed Huntress

Health Care
 

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


snip?

Ed said

It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new
technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of
opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some length,
is
that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards
and
expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so we
use
it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more;
we're
under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it still
more.

--
Ed Huntress

No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his
shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if
he
didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong.
That
probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least.

Yup. We have it, so we use it.

That sort of thing happens all the time
but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred.

That's what it costs. It's the amortization cost. The operating cost is
trivial.

But I
have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff.
The
prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is
no
rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room
is
more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons.

Yet, many hospitals are going broke.

Which suggests that it's time to look at their financials and to see
what's
actually going on. Speculation will get you nowhere, except into a blind
alley of delusion.

You take someone
with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people who
need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a
big
time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for.
What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for the
people who aren't covered by insurance.

That's a big chunk, but not the biggest chunk.


That and the needless duplication,
profit, and administrative waste.

Speculation on your part. Do you have the data?

The bottom line is that what's happening
now can't be sustained.

True.

We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.

Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress


The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice
is a no-brainer.

Hawke

Health Care
 

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


snip?

Ed said

It's between the new technology and (supposed) overuse of the new
technology. The former is a physical fact. The latter is a matter of
opinion. My own feeling, after having studied the issue at some
length,
is
that the "overuse" is mostly just a part of the ever-higher standards
and
expectations for successful outcomes. In other words, it's there, so
we
use
it; we want the maximum assurance it will work, so we use it more;
we're
under the legal gun to get the best possible result, so we use it
still
more.

--
Ed Huntress

No doubt that happens a lot. My 85 year old father had an MRI on his
shoulder this week because it was hurting. He wouldn't have done it if
he
didn't get it free. Results came in today and there was nothing wrong.
That
probably cost 1,200 bucks, at least.

Yup. We have it, so we use it.

That sort of thing happens all the time
but it should have cost a couple of hundred max, not 12 or 15 hundred.

That's what it costs. It's the amortization cost. The operating cost is
trivial.

But I
have looked at this issue myself and most "medicine" is simple stuff.
The
prices being charged for the mundane things are astronomical. There is
no
rational reason why a hospital charge just to stay over night in a room
is
more than Elton John pays for a suite at the Four Seasons.

Yet, many hospitals are going broke.

Which suggests that it's time to look at their financials and to see
what's
actually going on. Speculation will get you nowhere, except into a blind
alley of delusion.

You take someone
with real serious problems that keep them in ICU for days and people
who
need the most expensive medications and yeah, that's going to run up a
big
time charge. But those are not what most of the dollars are going for.
What's driving up the costs is that we are overcharging everyone for
the
people who aren't covered by insurance.

That's a big chunk, but not the biggest chunk.


That and the needless duplication,
profit, and administrative waste.

Speculation on your part. Do you have the data?

The bottom line is that what's happening
now can't be sustained.

True.

We have to get a new administration or we will stay
with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe
that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't
let
that happen.

Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs
is
problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a
monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult.

--
Ed Huntress


The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to
fix
the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that
costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame
all
kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You
can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You
can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You
have
too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to
make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous
private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the
minimum
it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making
profits.
From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the
medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the
pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system
to
maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the
other
countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will
work.
Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none
of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they
could
have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations.
But
they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government
could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries
can
afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the
light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We
also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the
one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the
opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the
change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have
a
good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse.
So
we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice
is a no-brainer.

Hawke

As for assuring that everyone has health care, I agree, a single-payer
system is the only way. But don't count on it reducing costs. For that, we
need to make some hard decisions and set new priorities for health care in
general.

The problem is immensely complex, and it would only be misleading to try to
discuss it here. I've spent tens of hours with people at work on this
subject, people who are bona fide experts with decades of experience, and I
have some opinions on it as a result of those discussions. But it's not for
here.

--
Ed Huntress

I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
 

Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did
the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's
the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever
goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the
economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush
administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we
are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the
decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always
do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are
worth
listening to and whose are bull****?

Hawke


Its not a good answer but: neither and both?

I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote:

Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did
the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's
the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever
goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the
economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush
administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we
are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the
decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always
do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are
worth
listening to and whose are bull****?

Hawke


Its not a good answer but: neither and both?

Congress is Democrat controlled.


"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

I'm voting republican because...
 

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:43:40 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote:

Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy
did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other
didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each
other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is
right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats
say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to
blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think?
They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The
republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now
you tell me who's accusations are worth
listening to and whose are bull****?

Hawke


Its not a good answer but: neither and both?

Congress is Democrat controlled.

And gridlocked by Republicans. It's idiotic to blame one party while
ignoring the actions of the other.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush Doctrine: Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-