Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Well, what is the cause of the increase in medical costs?<< The cost of insurance administration, the cost of dealing with insurance in physician's offices and hospitals, the cost of insuring physicians and hospitals, the cost of setting prices based on insurance reimbursement rates rather than the true cost of providing the service, low reimbursement rates for emergency and maternity services that must be made up for in more profitable services like diagnostics and elective surgeries, increasing labor costs in high-demand professions such as nursing in hospitals, too much middle management, the cost inspections such as JCAHO, market forces driving hospitals to expand by buying up other hospitals or expanding into new markets which result in higher debt which must be paid by patient visits, increasing energy costs, bad investments of cash reserves in the stock market that lost huge amounts of money that must be built up again, expensive equipment duplicated for competition at nearby hospitals, ever-changing safety standards that mandate the replacement of new and unused equipment with newer equipment with minor modifications, increased staffing required by insurance company billing requirements, technology upgrades to paperless charting systems, high executive pay levels, high staffing costs due to need for round-the-clock environmental services and facilities and nutrition services staff, changes to physical structures to meet ever-changing safety and HIPAA standards, competition for latest equipment and technology for physicians to play with when they admit patients, advertising campaigns and marketing materials, and ever increasing patient demand for private rooms. But I may have left a few things out. >>The second question would then be can it be fixed by socialist reprogramming or market forces?<< I don't think that market forces are working that well for anyone but the insurance companies right now. It's not really working that well for the patients and it's not working well for the hospitals. How to fix it? I have no idea. I do know that our current system favors shareholder value above all else, at least for the for-profit enterprises. But non-profits like the hospital I work for still have to deal with the policies established by the for-profit insurance companies where shareholder value is the measure of success.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>And if government control of or dictation to an industry (medical) is not a form of Socialism, what do you view as Socialism.<< What we have now are corporations dictating to the healthcare industry how things are going to be done and how much they'll get paid for it. It's not socialism, but it isn't free market either. I don't know what the word for it would be, but that's how it's done.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Tom, I forget you work in the industry. With you insider knowledge of the system, do you beleive that some form of government control would lower the cost or raise the cost of doing business? After watching the government's handling of recent disasters, I know what my answer would be. I despise the short term profit mentality of modern capitalism, but I am not convinced that government bureaucracy could do it any better. History is not kind to government control of industries.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So then if you do not feel that capitalism is a system which can meet the needs of the masses you are forced to embrace a system which places greater government control on the given industry (in this case Medical care) which is Socialism.>> Government regulates virtually every industry there is and can certainly continue to do so without crossing the line to socialism. Socialism is a political structure where the government owns the means of production and private property is not allowed. There is NO WAY you can claim that stricter government regulation of the medical industry would be socialism.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's not really working that well for the patients and it's not working well for the hospitals. > It's not working too well for a lot of doctors, either. My primary care physician is a GREAT guy that I really like (and his office is right in our building, which is great), and we've become kind of friendly, i.e. not just doctor/patient. So he lets me in on some of the headaches he has to deal with with HMO's, insurance, paperwork, etc. The current system is not working well. Republicans always talk about hating bureaucracy, but pretend as though only goverment has them. Well right now the health care system has HUGE bureaucracies, and none of them talk to each other. A huge percentage of the cost of health care these days is paperwork - something a single-payer system reduces.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 RoadTrip, this is not necessarily a case of Capitalism or Socialism. There is no magic tripwire which dictates something being Socialsim. It is various shades of grey. Greater government control of an industry is a move towards socialism. Pure and simple
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But if there are gray areas, then it's not "pure," nor is it "simple," no?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>With you insider knowledge of the system, do you beleive that some form of government control would lower the cost or raise the cost of doing business?<< Frankly, my main concern is what is best for the patients. I'm only concerned with the cost of doing "business" as it relates to providing care for the patients. We don't expect return on shareholder value from our police or fire departments, and I think essential health care falls under the same heading. But I understand the money has to come from somewhere. Is it good that our employers are saddled with the cost of providing health care by buying insurance plans from companies who are using those sales to make profits? Or would American business and American citizens be better off if we all paid for health care through a single-payer insurance system where the cost of our health care is spread over the entire population? I think a single payer healthcare system with percentage-based co-pays is probably the best option, both for the health care consumer and for American businesses. More people would have access to health care, which means that they will not put off basic preventative care which means that they won't have as many sick days. American companies will have more money available for investment in new capital or even for wage increases or increases in retirement benefits or child care benefits. There would be less of a chance for flu pandemics because more people would be able to be immunized. And the health care industry would see an increased demand for their products. The percentage-based co-pays would mean that consumers would still shop around in a competitive market place for the best use of their dollars. We have a plan at work where our employer pays the first $750 of all health care and 100% of all preventative treatments. The consumer pays anything above $750 and less than $3000. After $3000, the company pays 100% of everything. That way, there is still some shopping around for the best price for that out of pocket money but the expensive catastrophic stuff is covered. I realize that those billions spent by American business on health insurance are supporting the insurance companies, but I think we should be focusing on how to maximize those dollars toward health care instead of sending out a percentage of them for insurance company profits.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy First off, the NY Times in the original post got totally busted trying to paint the soldier who died as someone who was not happy with the war effort, when in reality, he was VERY proud of the mission he was involved in. Typical leftist garbage who will go to disgusting lenghts to push their agenda of the US hopefully losing this war. As far as the other posts go... the dems back in the day were a great party. JFK would be a Republican today if he were around. So the question that should be asked is: What ideas do the democrats have today or in the last 2 years?? After all, they want to be elected someday. It's tough to do when your party is still bragging about things that happened 40 and 50 years ago.
Originally Posted By patrickegan In your scenario would we turn away illegal aliens that need health care in an effort to lower costs, or do I have to still “single-payer†for them too?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If they aren't in the plan, they should be obligated to pay for it themselves.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 So who would provide the plan Tom? This is a great idea by the way, I am just curious who the "insurance provider" would be.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>So who would provide the plan Tom?<< Halliburton Hell, I don't know. Preferably a non-profit with financial books that are open to public scrutiny and the right of consumers to appeal decisions.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 It would have to be a no-profit, since a for profit would be considered a monopoly. It would also require that there be a sufficient amount of re-insurance to support the reserves of the non-profit, which would require a non-profit reinsurer. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any re-insurer large enough to quaruntee the reserves so the government would have to create one. Or just re-insure it themselves. Then of course, as someone who works on the Insurance side of the equation, I can tell that there would have to be a way to fight fraud. And Medical Abuse (recommending unneeded procedures). Great idea Tom, as a blazing conservative, I could support the concept of an independent, non-profit insurer that was reinsured by the US Government as long as that re-insurance did not come with the caveat that they could tell the non-profit what to do (above and beyond the reserves issue). Take it to your local representative.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I also think a single-payer system is the most rational AND cost-effective way to go.
Originally Posted By patrickegan They aren’t part of the plan now or are the obligated to pay. The policy is that they have no way of forcing or going after non citizens to pay there bill. So I already am a single payer for me and someone else as are you and anyone else that uses the healthcare system. So with the new system who will be the hammer and turn away the non-single payers? Or will this be like the uninsured motorist thing in California? It’s illegal not to have insurance but you still have to carry uninsured motorist coverage.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Who will enforce the single payer system? Are we going to turn the doctors in cops, or will it be the same system with a different name?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So I already am a single payer for me and someone else as are you and anyone else that uses the healthcare system. > I don't think you understand the meaning of "single payer system." That refers to government agency or non-profit being the single insurance payer. Right now we have dozens of insurance companies, HMO's, PPO's, medicare, medicaid, all with different rules and procedures, which is driving up the cost of health care due to the ridiculous amounts of paperwork that doctors and hospitals must negotiate, and driving them crazy in the process. It has nothing to do with being the "single payer" for yourself.
