T
Theo520
Guest
ROFL, you have zero evidence anyone is “skimming hundreds of billions”
You can’t help solve the problem until you start dealing with reality, not talking points.
Study: When Counting Premiums, US Workers Heavily Taxed
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
You can’t help solve the problem until you start dealing with reality, not talking points.
B
Balto1
Guest
And absent talking points, countries with nationalized healthcare systems spend much less than we do.
Reminder that annual medical spending waste (i.e., the skimming) is approaching $1 trillion. It’s why even the barest of price controls and reforms in Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All bill saves $200 billion a year over current spending despite covering tens of millions more people.
Reminder that annual medical spending waste (i.e., the skimming) is approaching $1 trillion. It’s why even the barest of price controls and reforms in Bernie Sanders’ Medicare For All bill saves $200 billion a year over current spending despite covering tens of millions more people.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
B
Balto1
Guest
T
Theo520
Guest
That there is waste in the whole system doesn’t equal insurance companies are doing massive skimming.
Take a logic course, lay off the logical fallacies.
Take a logic course, lay off the logical fallacies.
B
Balto1
Guest
Oh I see, you interpreted ‘skimming’ in my comment as referring to some sort of criminal fraud instead of the actual sense I was using it to refer to the massive waste involved in treating a human right such as healthcare as a consumer good.
W
whatistrue
Guest
To be fair, the term “skimming” typically does imply unethical or illegal conduct. Not to mention that the way you used “profit” in the same sentence gives the impression that you see profit as inherently bad. Profiteering is bad; reasonable profit is not.
blackforest
Well-known member
I’ve long told my kids that there’s nothing wrong with making money, so long as you’re doing it ethically. Health insurance companies aren’t doing it ethically. They’re pocketing a lot of our money, and we’re not seeing enough of it come back. I just got a nasty bill for a preventative well-woman exam. 
They insist on applying it toward a deductible that we’d only meet in a life-threatening emergency.
They insist on applying it toward a deductible that we’d only meet in a life-threatening emergency.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Granted that some are unethical, I don’t think it is the case that all are unethical. And of course even with companies that are ethical you get the same sort of issue that the Church gets sometimes - individuals acting against rules and policy and often getting away with it.
T
Theo520
Guest
whether it’s an insurance company or govt employees, people are in the middle trying to manage the usage of those billions spent on healthcare. Just shifting the burden to the govt doesn’t guarantee a reduction in cost or fraud.
blackforest
Well-known member
The private sector has less transparency, representation, and accountability in how it conducts its affairs. Through the state, we’d have at least minimal representation and a requirement for public record-keeping. Also, it’s a lot easier to raise premiums than to raise taxes. The public sector is a tightwad and will only allow so many expenditures, thereby preventing the widespread problem of over-treatment. I’m not completely sure if I’m on board with single-payer, (I have some kinks to work out, e.g. whether or not abortions would be funded), but it’s the best alternative I can think of.
That said, I would consider a push to separate insurance coverage from employers and just place it on the open market, provided there was a social safety net for those who couldn’t afford it. I don’t see as strong of an organized movement for such an endeavor, however.
I’d frankly take either option over what we have now.
That said, I would consider a push to separate insurance coverage from employers and just place it on the open market, provided there was a social safety net for those who couldn’t afford it. I don’t see as strong of an organized movement for such an endeavor, however.
I’d frankly take either option over what we have now.
C
Crocus
Guest
Looking at the current system, do you think it possible to gradually expand Medicaid to more people, to the point where everyone is covered.
blackforest
Well-known member
Medicaid has been polluted with too much out-sourcing to insurance companies, i.e. “public-private partnerships.” I’m inclined to say that I’d rather kill it and start anew.
C
Crocus
Guest
Aren’t there pregnant women who are not covered or any who can’t afford the high deductibles, that could have that covered, as a start to extend the administration that is already in place?
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Actually… why not improve the ACA Exchanges, I don’t know, pour a $120 billion to $240 billion, those can plans perhaps can be improved (maybe make them resemble what the Congressional/Federal Health Benefits look like), at some point, could we make premiums (and deductibles) low enough to trigger a flood of people buying into said plans which in turn wards off adverse selection and weren’t the Exchanges already high risk pools anyhow?
I guess this is a case where we’ll need to stand up to special interest (reverse and flip the physician shortage into a surplus (free medical schools, got that from someone else here, credit due to said person), train way more doctors and nurses, end monopolies/oligopolies like challenging Certificate of Need Laws that apparently limit supply, look into pharma reform (killing patents may be extreme but what about importation and 10 year patents instead, plus FDA Reform too), apparently, there’s also Interstate Competition and Tort Reform but apparently those two are overhyped); how would you feel about retooling current subsidies (Medicaid/Medicare/savings from ending the Employer Exemption not to mention Exchange Subsidies) into an arrangement like health care “vouchers” (I saw this idea a couple/few times actually)?
B
Balto1
Guest
This might be an argument worth considering if we lived in a world where we didn’t know what percentage private health insurance companies spend on administration and profit and what our current government-run insurance plans spend on administration, and also what the government health plans/services in other countries spend on administration. But we don’t live in that world.
P
PetraG
Guest
More to the point, the pricing system can be more fair when providers can fairly expect that they’ll be paid for every patient cared for (and not sued to kingdom come if they make a mistake). Part of the high price of litigation is the high price of health care to compensate for a mistake, because it is too much to expect the patient to pick up the financial tab for the health care provider’s error in addition to directly suffering the consequences of the mistake physically.
Last edited:
S
Sarcelle
Guest
There is a faulty assumption that we are on an even playing field. That we consumers have a voice in how we want our healthcare.
Nothing could be more false. We have the providers, the insurance companies and big pharma all making sure with their money that the field is in their favor.
Not to mention the food industry sponsoring studies on nutrition.
Remember the Snackwell craze in the 90s? That the public was sold the view that fat was enemy number one and we could have as many low-fat sugar filled junk as one wanted and not gain weight?
Or how about Coca-Cola saying you can have their sugar filled drinks as long as you exercise. I’ve learned the hard way that you can’t outrun a bad diet.
We need a grassroots movement saying enough is enough and that our health will not be collateral damage due to the avarice of corporations.
Can’t rely on government. We all know who’s lining their pockets.
Nothing could be more false. We have the providers, the insurance companies and big pharma all making sure with their money that the field is in their favor.
Not to mention the food industry sponsoring studies on nutrition.
Remember the Snackwell craze in the 90s? That the public was sold the view that fat was enemy number one and we could have as many low-fat sugar filled junk as one wanted and not gain weight?
Or how about Coca-Cola saying you can have their sugar filled drinks as long as you exercise. I’ve learned the hard way that you can’t outrun a bad diet.
We need a grassroots movement saying enough is enough and that our health will not be collateral damage due to the avarice of corporations.
Can’t rely on government. We all know who’s lining their pockets.
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
It’s a big club, and you’re not in it.
blackforest
Well-known member
Oh, I want them covered as much as you do. I’m just not sure that taking an already flawed set up and expanding it is the answer. (Yes - shocker! - I’ve been a consistent opponent of Obamacare). I did appreciate the Public Option initiative that was proposed and would still support it. But as you likely recall, it died as soon as critics started screaming about “socialism.”
As I’m sure you’ll acknowledge, sometimes they deserve the lawsuit. I’ll have to dig it up, but I remember seeing a 2006 study showing that only a tiny fraction of malpractice lawsuits met the definition of “frivolous.” Given that medical incompetence is killing 100K-400K Americans annually, this shouldn’t surprise any of us.
My husband now needs a root canal for a once-minor filling that his dentist botched. We could sue, but why? And how? Only the rich can afford that sort of legal counsel. A root canal is a lot cheaper.
- Status