Alan Grayson is my hero

[B_24065]

Well first of all, Grayson is a lying piece of fucking shit. The republicans have put forth plenty of proposals, some of which are noted by els, but there are others like tort reform and opening up insurance competition across state lines which would drive costs down. And secondly, the republicans are MOTHER FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!! If the dems had the support of their entire party on this, they could pass anything they wanted. So, if a Lying piece of shit is your hero, then i guess it totally fits.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Vell furst ooff ell, Greysun is a lyeeng peeece-a ooff foockeeng sheet. Um de hur de hur de hur. Zee repoobleecuns hefe-a poot furt plenty ooff prupusels, sume-a ooff vheech ere-a nuted by ils, boot zeere-a ere-a oozeers leeke-a turt reffurm und oopeneeng up insoorunce-a cumpeteeshun ecruss stete-a leenes vheech vuoold dreefe-a custs doon. Bork bork bork! Und secundly, zee repoobleecuns ere-a MOTHER FOoCKING IRRELEFENT!!!! Iff zee dems hed zee sooppurt ooff zeeur inture-a perty oon thees, zeey cuoold pess unytheeng zeey vunted. Bork bork bork! Su, iff a Lyeeng peeece-a ooff sheet is yuoor heru, zeen i gooess it tutelly feets. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

Bork, bork, bork indeedi-o!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled, civilized thread already in progress.

 

[jason_els]

Well first of all, Grayson is a lying piece of fucking shit. The republicans have put forth plenty of proposals, some of which are noted by els, but there are others like tort reform and opening up insurance competition across state lines which would drive costs down. And secondly, the republicans are MOTHER FUCKING IRRELEVANT!!!! If the dems had the support of their entire party on this, they could pass anything they wanted. So, if a Lying piece of shit is your hero, then i guess it totally fits.

Tort reform is important. It's one of the things that works really well in socialized systems because those systems protect physicians who work for them from bearing unreasonable malpractice insurance.

One thing that will happen automatically in a government system is that malpractice premiums will drop simply because the malpractice insurers won't have to pay for the extended care of the people they loses cases to. That cost will already be carried by the government system. That leaves insurance companies to cover punitive damages. Simply by changing the system, we relieve it of a major cost which is currently being carried exclusively by care providers themselves.

Insurance competition across state lines is a good thing. It does allow greater competition and that should result in reduced costs, but it still does not address the problem of health care costs increasing at rates exceeding earnings and inflation, nor does it address the fact that insurance companies would still be in control of care. It's a temporary fix for a problem that's not going away. It's not a bad idea, and every little bit helps, but it's not a major factor in lowering the rate of health care cost increases or improve the quality of care.

Quality of care under the HMO/PPO model has caused American health care to decline to standards below most industrialized nations. This is difficult to appreciate because the US still is the center for health research and the development of health-related technologies. The US is not the be all and end all by any means, but high tech is something we still do very well and can export. None of this technology or advanced treatment matters though if you can't get access to it because insurers refuse to cover it. As in all basic economics, initial costs of cutting-edge medicines and technologies are high and the early adopters pay the most. Then economies of scale kick into play and as the technology or medicine becomes widely produced with fewer errors, and as mass production becomes possible, costs decline so that the technology becomes common place. The problem here is that insurance companies prefer to pay for lower-cost treatments which may not work as well as the newer treatments. Because of this, adoption of new technologies stalls because wide adoption doesn't become possible.

In socialized systems this is less of an issue become single-purchaser power can guarantee investment of mass-production and widespread adoption necessary to drive down costs. What initially begins as a high cost technology eventually becomes low-cost not only because of economies of scale, but because the newer technology should keep people alive longer and/or reduce their care needs. Thus, short term high costs eventually become long term lower costs.

Another major aspect of any reform has to involve public education about health and what can be done to improve health. Right now Americans are woefully uninformed about what is healthy and what isn't and the relaxation of FDA control of dietary supplements has resulted in a booming business of ridiculous medicine show quackery. People now are even trying to avoid immunizing their kids. It's a bit insane and harmful to public health. We also allow drug companies unfettered access to advertising and doctors are usually bribed to prescribe drugs pushed by drug company reps at the same time their patients are demanding a prescription because it's advertised on TV. In just about every other industrialized country, such practices are illegal because they are considered unethical.

 

[SilverTrain]

Tort reform is important. It's one of the things that works really well in socialized systems because those systems protect physicians who work for them from bearing unreasonable malpractice insurance.

One thing that will happen automatically in a government system is that malpractice premiums will drop simply because the malpractice insurers won't have to pay for the extended care of the people they loses cases to. That cost will already be carried by the government system. That leaves insurance companies to cover punitive damages. Simply by changing the system, we relieve it of a major cost which is currently being carried exclusively by care providers themselves.

Insurance competition across state lines is a good thing. It does allow greater competition and that should result in reduced costs, but it still does not address the problem of health care costs increasing at rates exceeding earnings and inflation, nor does it address the fact that insurance companies would still be in control of care. It's a temporary fix for a problem that's not going away. It's not a bad idea, and every little bit helps, but it's not a major factor in lowering the rate of health care cost increases or improve the quality of care.

Quality of care under the HMO/PPO model has caused American health care to decline to standards below most industrialized nations. This is difficult to appreciate because the US still is the center for health research and the development of health-related technologies. The US is not the be all and end all by any means, but high tech is something we still do very well and can export. None of this technology or advanced treatment matters though if you can't get access to it because insurers refuse to cover it. As in all basic economics, initial costs of cutting-edge medicines and technologies are high and the early adopters pay the most. Then economies of scale kick into play and as the technology or medicine becomes widely produced with fewer errors, and as mass production becomes possible, costs decline so that the technology becomes common place. The problem here is that insurance companies prefer to pay for lower-cost treatments which may not work as well as the newer treatments. Because of this, adoption of new technologies stalls because wide adoption doesn't become possible.

In socialized systems this is less of an issue become single-purchaser power can guarantee investment of mass-production and widespread adoption necessary to drive down costs. What initially begins as a high cost technology eventually becomes low-cost not only because of economies of scale, but because the newer technology should keep people alive longer and/or reduce their care needs. Thus, short term high costs eventually become long term lower costs.

Another major aspect of any reform has to involve public education about health and what can be done to improve health. Right now Americans are woefully uninformed about what is healthy and what isn't and the relaxation of FDA control of dietary supplements has resulted in a booming business of ridiculous medicine show quackery. People now are even trying to avoid immunizing their kids. It's a bit insane and harmful to public health. We also allow drug companies unfettered access to advertising and doctors are usually bribed to prescribe drugs pushed by drug company reps at the same time their patients are demanding a prescription because it's advertised on TV. In just about every other industrialized country, such practices are illegal because they are considered unethical.

Note to Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et. al.,

Schedule Els for a televised public address on health care. :smile:

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Note to Pelosi, Reid, Obama, et. al.,

Schedule Els for a televised public address on health care.

Yes, without a doubt. Fucking Jason. I'm glad we've got a smart guy on here. So Jason, what "reform" are we getting? Is it just expansion of our medical insurance industry?

 

[B_24065]

Tort reform is important. It's one of the things that works really well in socialized systems because those systems protect physicians who work for them from bearing unreasonable malpractice insurance.

One thing that will happen automatically in a government system is that malpractice premiums will drop simply because the malpractice insurers won't have to pay for the extended care of the people they loses cases to. That cost will already be carried by the government system. That leaves insurance companies to cover punitive damages. Simply by changing the system, we relieve it of a major cost which is currently being carried exclusively by care providers themselves.

Insurance competition across state lines is a good thing. It does allow greater competition and that should result in reduced costs, but it still does not address the problem of health care costs increasing at rates exceeding earnings and inflation, nor does it address the fact that insurance companies would still be in control of care. It's a temporary fix for a problem that's not going away. It's not a bad idea, and every little bit helps, but it's not a major factor in lowering the rate of health care cost increases or improve the quality of care.

Quality of care under the HMO/PPO model has caused American health care to decline to standards below most industrialized nations. This is difficult to appreciate because the US still is the center for health research and the development of health-related technologies. The US is not the be all and end all by any means, but high tech is something we still do very well and can export. None of this technology or advanced treatment matters though if you can't get access to it because insurers refuse to cover it. As in all basic economics, initial costs of cutting-edge medicines and technologies are high and the early adopters pay the most. Then economies of scale kick into play and as the technology or medicine becomes widely produced with fewer errors, and as mass production becomes possible, costs decline so that the technology becomes common place. The problem here is that insurance companies prefer to pay for lower-cost treatments which may not work as well as the newer treatments. Because of this, adoption of new technologies stalls because wide adoption doesn't become possible.

In socialized systems this is less of an issue become single-purchaser power can guarantee investment of mass-production and widespread adoption necessary to drive down costs. What initially begins as a high cost technology eventually becomes low-cost not only because of economies of scale, but because the newer technology should keep people alive longer and/or reduce their care needs. Thus, short term high costs eventually become long term lower costs.

Another major aspect of any reform has to involve public education about health and what can be done to improve health. Right now Americans are woefully uninformed about what is healthy and what isn't and the relaxation of FDA control of dietary supplements has resulted in a booming business of ridiculous medicine show quackery. People now are even trying to avoid immunizing their kids. It's a bit insane and harmful to public health. We also allow drug companies unfettered access to advertising and doctors are usually bribed to prescribe drugs pushed by drug company reps at the same time their patients are demanding a prescription because it's advertised on TV. In just about every other industrialized country, such practices are illegal because they are considered unethical.

What is this? Could it be...no...maybe it is????...no....yes, yes i think it is.....a reasonable response to a post??? ON LPSG??? could it be?? Well put Mr. Els.

Note the contrast by vinylgirl:

"Bork, bork, bork indeedi-o!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled, civilized thread already in progress."

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Note the contrast by vinylgirl:

Consider yourself lucky that someone like Jason even decided to engage a mess like you in any form of discussion. However, since you feel as if I'm a "cancer to my own race" you don't deserve my civility or honest answers.

Besides, when you start sentences calling people, and I quote... a lying piece of fucking shit... you should be the very LAST person to be speaking about a "reasonable response". Damn hypocrite.

So stick it. Better yet, ignore me... if you can.

 

[JTalbain]

I liked this one
YouTube - What are the GOP Proposals for Healthcare Reform?
...and this one shows why Grayson growing a spine, whether he's right or wrong, is a good thing YouTube - Rep. Grayson - GOP Are A Bunch Of Neanderthals . The explanation of why it's good comes at 5:50.

What the GOP proposals do not do is get the uninsured covered or get them out of medicaid-induced poverty which is precisely what we need to make this country more prosperous and cut medical costs. Insurance companies add no value to the health care system. They exist to make a profit off of it. I don't begrudge profit. Certainly doctors, technicians, nurses, and other health care providers are entitled to make money for their skills but insurance companies neither cure nor produce anything that improves health. They need to be excluded from the picture except for supplementary policies as they do in other countries. Life and death decisions need to be in the hands of doctors and patients, not health insurers. That's the ultimate necessity of any reform.

For those that don't see how an insurance company will drive up costs and decrease quality of health care:

You are running an insurance company. You cover two different hospitals in different areas, both of which have different costs and overheads. For one high-end procedure, a hospital would charge $300,000 in order to cover costs and meet their profit margin expectations. Meanwhile, another more high tech hospital has cutting-edge equipment and the best trained (and thus highest paid) specialist in the region. As a result, the better hospital which provides better healthcare would charge $400,000 for the same procedure.

Question: From a business perspective, as an insurance provider, how do you reconcile this under your insurance plans?

Answer: Since the procedure is one entry in your database, and thus has one listed cost, you allow the procedure to be covered for $400,000.

Question 2: What motivation does the low tech hospital have for charging less than $400,000?

Question 3: What motivation does the high tech hospital have for developing better healthcare services?

Alternative Answer: You allow the procedure to be covered for $300,000. No one except the very rich is allowed to receive the best healthcare.

And here's a question of my own, in a non-socratic style. Republicans say that if there was a government run option that competed with privately owned insurance companies, they would be unable to compete. I think there's no denying that the insurance companies would take a hit to their bottom line, but has anyone actually checked to see what the financial status is for these companies? If we think their revenue would take a 20% cut, that sounds really huge, but what if their financial statement shows that 50% of their revenue is pure profit? It's not like their business structure requires a lot of capital investment. They're money redistributing middlemen. Don't we need to see how well off the insurance companies actually are before we make statements that they would be financially devastated by government run competition?

 

[Dave NoCal]

The figures I have read regarding the profit margin of health insurance companies have run 30% - 35%. That's a BIG chunk, especially when you consider that grocery stores' profit margins are about 1%.
Dave

 

[JTalbain]

The figures I have read regarding the profit margin of health insurance companies have run 30% - 35%. That's a BIG chunk, especially when you consider that grocery stores' profit margins are about 1%.
Dave

Christ on a cracker, that is a lot. Assuming the bottom of that range, they could take a 20% hit to revenue (which is fraggin huge for any business) and STILL be making a respectable 10% profit.