• Welcome To LPSG
    Welcome to LPSG.com. If you are here because you are looking for the most amazing open-minded fun-spirited sexy adult community then you have found the right place. We also happen to have some of the sexiest members you'll ever meet. Signup below and come join us.


Health Care Reform

Frnkd213

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Posts
1,408
Reaction score
909
Points
358
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Okay except for the part that say all American will have to get health care insurance. or be fined. What is the other part of health care reform that is bad, and what is GOOD. To LPSG members.

I find it very disturbing that the platform of the republican candidates and tea party specifically is to get rid of Health Care Reform (I purposefully not use the "obamacare" nomenclature). Which made me think of why get rid of the entirety if the only "unconstitutional" part is, as I understand it, the part that mandates health care insurance need to be gotten by everyone.

The part that enables the parents insurance to cover their children till 25 or so, whats wrong with that?
Insurance comp cannot drop your coverage because of illness. What wrong with that?

Cannot be denied because of a per-existing condition. I heard that pregnancy or the ability to get pregnant is a per-existing condition by definition and the insurance comp. could deny a woman coverage, true,not true?

enlighten me on what is absolutely the reason why the entire health care reform should be gotten rid of, please.

PS. This has nothing to do with the question but the auto correct for Obamacare is "macabre" hmmm.
 

dandelion

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Reaction score
2,695
Points
358
Location
UK
I would suggest from my perspective, the government needs to become more directly involved in providing care and cut out the middlemen. Other suggestions are that liitigation over health care is excessive and out of control.
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,047
Reaction score
58
Points
193
Healthcare in the present form is completely broken and no longer workable for anyone.

The bill that was passed was a disaster. It has few redeeming qualities in any manner except for one. It passed two bodies of government and a judiciary that cannot agree on which end to crack an egg is appropriate. That is the ONLY thing it has done.

What now exists is a basic framework from which those who really do care and want reform can build on.

The legal precedents here come from Medicare which came about in the mid 1960's.

Those most opposed to reform are those who want to preserve the status quo mainly for insurance carriers who only want to give health care insurance to healthy people. They do not want to spend a nickel of their profits towards actually helping anyone. The benefits that most of us have now have been eroded and reduced markedly in the name of corporate profit. Currently, most policies have a cap and a second policy is necessary for "catastrophic illness". That policy begins when the cap or maximum policy value is reached on the primary coverage.

The concept right now is to throw anyone who creates a major expense to the wolves at some point anyway. Most individuals facing common cancer exhaust their front line policies or coverage. At a point when they are most ill and unable to have any from of employment they are then forced to pay ever escalating rates through various systems to continue their care. In the end these sick people end up with care via State and Federal programs anyway. The private carriers "walk away" leaving the patient sick, broke, and often create situations where care lapses and this results on occasion in the death of the patient.

Why there is such incredible opposition by a vocal group of individuals in government is that the reform as it now stands would FORCE carriers to insure people with health care issues. It does not allow them to drop or screen out people because of pre-existing conditions. This means that all of us would be entitled to care at a price which as yet has not had caps or limitations placed on it.

It is well known that the fines and or mandatory subscription is a demand of the private companies this means that by law you are required by law to ensure their profits. The thinking is that the larger the base of individuals the less the impact sick individuals requiring care will have on the profit margins generated by the healthy individuals not needing care.

In most countries operating under a single payer plan the difference is that your health care costs are taken out of your payroll as a tax charge. The cost of that coverage per month depends on the salary you earn. Minimal rates in Canada might be in the area of $40-$50 per month for a person at a low wage to a much higher rate for an individual making $250,000 per year.

Right now you are beginning to see the problem. The guy making 250,000 does not want to pay that rate based on his income under what would appear to be a direct tax to pay for health care for "the other guy".

In most countries that offer single payer health care plans there are alternatives and the opposition to these plans seems to always leave out the details.

You can purchase a supplemental private policy that upgrades your coverage in some areas. For instance: A given amount per month would guarantee you a private room in a hospital versus a multi-bed room and other amenities of luxury during your care or recovery. Basic care would be the same for all, but the insurance pays for many upgrades in what you get.

In the United States, we have a framework already in place for a single payer plan and that is Medicare. This could be expanded at minimal cost with regards to infrastructure to cover all Americans. If it were expanded who would win? The American People would get care and universally so. The problem is that if the American People received decent care and found the system to work even with a few rough spots, most Americans would not choose to "opt out" into private insurance. This would bankrupt numerous carriers who are not prepared, and do not care to move their role into the supplemental market as is or has been done in most foreign countries with single pay systems.

A great deal of pressure has been applied to medical professionals from the insurance industry crying gloom and doom to support the current system, because under what we have right now, they the carriers have the legal ability to discriminate right and left and of course maximize profits. They can pay Executives and those occupying the Board Room multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, and they most of all can deny you care when the chips are down.

Now, under circumstances where people were good and benevolent and cared about their fellow man and where people came in ahead of corporate greed, the system we have would be far better. The unfortunate truth is that many are now being denied care or thrown into situations where "red tape" causes a total of denial of care in the name of profit allowing people to die because death to an insurance carrier eliminates the continued expense of a sick person. I know that this sounds incredibly cynical, but after several experiences before my Mother died in 2001 it is unfortunately the facts.

The only thing of value in what was passed is the infrastructure. The actual system that was passed is a disaster. What those opposed fear most is the framework under which something good could be built.

America is a great Nation with many great people. The unfortunate situation now is that we have a select few who have gained power and great wealth who fully intend to maximize that wealth even if it costs people their lives.

I have watched this, and I have experienced this with the death of my own Mother back in 2001. As much as I hate the concept of a single payer system, I have to admit that it is now the only alternative. I have seen too much of what we have right now, versus what others under single pay systems have, first hand. I have friends in the United Kingdom and Canada. I have friends in France as well.

The United States was once the world leader in health care for it's citizens. Right now the United States has monumental technology and research, and yet, not all Americans can benefit from this technology because that technology and those developments cost money.

One example is a treatment for cancer called "particle beam". This has saved numerous lives as part of the arsenal against cancer. However ten years after it's inception and proof that it works, many insurance carriers refuse to pay for it classifying it as "experimental". This is now a common dodge for good treatments that are expensive. If we don't want to pay for something we simply re-classify a drug or a treatment or drug as "experimental".

Change must take place, and in a few years fixing health care will begin in the Court System. If that is what it takes, then it will at least be considered a beginning.
 
Last edited:

Frnkd213

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Posts
1,408
Reaction score
909
Points
358
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
FK,
Thanks for the extensive explanation!
You would think that this is the result of extensive debate and negotiations, and after all the compromises we have this?

I wonder what part of it is the republicans doing, you know, won't approve unless this or that is added.

It becomes even more apparent as to who is running our govt. Lobbyists and big business!

This is appalling as the people who gets the shaft are the ones the spirit of the bill is to assist, the American people, not some insurance company owned by foreigners.
 

Redwyvre

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Posts
609
Reaction score
316
Points
128
Location
Minneapolis (Minnesota, United States)
This will be getting more interesting as time goes on. Re: Keeping the kids on the parents company insurance policy until they reach age 25. My insurance agent told me she is seeing an uptick in folks coming to her saying the company is now only going to cover the employee. Everyone else in the family will have to have seperate insurance. Re: Forcing insurance companies to cover everyone and anyone makes about as much sense as forcing folks who are broke to buy health insurance policy. I think the problem comes down the entire concept of health insurance doesn't make sense. Life insurance makes sense. Car insurance makes sense. Property insurance makes sense. Health insurance from a moral and financial perspective is whacked. I'm pretty sure this will become more apparent as time goes on.
 

dude_007

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,847
Reaction score
97
Points
133
Location
California
Yes, you have the Washington lobby machine to thank for the mess with Health Reform. Too many organizations profiting on the current system are funding leaders in our government and pointing the finger elsewhere.
 

Frnkd213

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Posts
1,408
Reaction score
909
Points
358
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Don't get me wrong I'm all for health care reform. I'm from a state where employers provide health care insurance by law to full time employees and partial to part time(20+hr) How much the employee pays is part of a package that is offered to the employee.

Unionized employees have negotiated 100% employer paid plans but with the economy many employees are now being asked to pay at least 10-20%. the private sector employers usually pay 80 % any way. So unionized establishments including the state and city is starting to share the cost. If the employee opts to purchase a family plan, health care reform has enabled the parent to continue coverage till the child is 25, prior to this only if the child was attending a post high school program(college, voc school) could continue to be covered with no difference in premiums. Otherwise when the child graduated coverage ended. There is no mandated that all residence of the state has to have insurance or face a fine. As in the health care reform bill.

Because insurance cannot drop peoples coverage because of illness it was news to hear this kind of practice in the majority of states. Also in order to offer insurance the company must abide by this stipulation of coverage fo individual, spouse, or family. Interestingly enough how many kid you have makes no difference. A one child family pays as much for the family plan as one with 11 kids. Guess it balances out in the end.

It was actually disheartening to hear that the model was Massachusetts. In particular the mandated coverage.

I'm still wondering what was the republicans demands in the final bill. I'm sure theirs had all kind of profit making loopholes and stipulations for the insurance company.
 
Last edited:

BF2K

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Posts
221
Reaction score
66
Points
273
Location
SE of Paris - won't say how far.
Healthcare in the US is completely broken!! I have diabetes since three year, not my choice, paid insurance since I was a kid. Insurance should be linked to the person NOT the job - in the US if you lose your job your lose your insurance. However, this should not be managed by the US govt. only waste and corruption would occur in this plan. Tell insurance companies that they need to cover ANYONE with a minimal care and not make a profit from it - they can make profits for additional care paid by their employer.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Healthcare in the US is completely broken!! I have diabetes since three year, not my choice, paid insurance since I was a kid. Insurance should be linked to the person NOT the job - in the US if you lose your job your lose your insurance. However, this should not be managed by the US govt. only waste and corruption would occur in this plan. Tell insurance companies that they need to cover ANYONE with a minimal care and not make a profit from it - they can make profits for additional care paid by their employer.

So health insurance shouldn't be linked to your job . . . but additional care should be paid for by your employer? :confused:
 

OhWiseOne

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,512
Reaction score
2,692
Points
298
Location
Florida
Insurance is not a perfect world. But don't tell me I have to buy insurance or I will be fined. You can put that where the sun don't shine. When gov. starts to regulate anything it is done in a manner to benefit the people pulling the political strings.

Just a note my employer only pays the employees insurance and if you have family members you foot the bill. Let me say it's not pretty.

Maybe it would be more affordable if the medical field got thier costs in line and we put a limit on lawsuits which is a huge portion of insurance costs. Deal with the root causes.
 

Industrialsize

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,224
Reaction score
29,308
Points
293
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Insurance is not a perfect world. But don't tell me I have to buy insurance or I will be fined. You can put that where the sun don't shine. When gov. starts to regulate anything it is done in a manner to benefit the people pulling the political strings.

Just a note my employer only pays the employees insurance and if you have family members you foot the bill. Let me say it's not pretty.

Maybe it would be more affordable if the medical field got thier costs in line and we put a limit on lawsuits which is a huge portion of insurance costs. Deal with the root causes.
Fact check:
That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

Would Tort Reform Lower Costs? - NYTimes.com
 

dandelion

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Reaction score
2,695
Points
358
Location
UK
Perhaps, but you also need to consider all the defensive medicine which may take place to prevant any risk of litigation. If every doctor carries out extra tests to cover himself from being sued, that could amount to an awful lot more than the payouts.
 

Industrialsize

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,224
Reaction score
29,308
Points
293
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Perhaps, but you also need to consider all the defensive medicine which may take place to prevant any risk of litigation. If every doctor carries out extra tests to cover himself from being sued, that could amount to an awful lot more than the payouts.
How about some facts instead of supposition:
Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated


Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]CBO: When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times][/FONT]
FactCheck.org: President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits
 

OhWiseOne

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,512
Reaction score
2,692
Points
298
Location
Florida
Perhaps, but you also need to consider all the defensive medicine which may take place to prevant any risk of litigation. If every doctor carries out extra tests to cover himself from being sued, that could amount to an awful lot more than the payouts.


I forgot about that portion generated by the fear of doctors being sued. Good point.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
How about some facts instead of supposition:
Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated


Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]CBO: When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times][/FONT]
FactCheck.org: President Uses Dubious Statistics on Costs of Malpractice Lawsuits

One other element to take into account: the higher insurance premiums doctors have to pay to offset their risk of liability--charges which get passed on to the consumer, whether or not an actual lawsuit is ever filed.
 

Industrialsize

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,224
Reaction score
29,308
Points
293
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
One other element to take into account: the higher insurance premiums doctors have to pay to offset their risk of liability--charges which get passed on to the consumer, whether or not an actual lawsuit is ever filed.
New Study Finds Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums have Minimal Effect on Health Care Costs


Americans for Insurance Reform, a coalition made up of Consumer Federation of America, ConsumerWatchdog.org and nearly 100 other public interest organizations, released a major study Wednesday on the state of the medical malpractice insurance industry. It found that insurance rates for doctors have dropped significantly while the medical malpractice insurers are earning record profits. The conclusion is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not crippling doctors and that large profits are going to the insurance industry.
Specifically, the study found, adjusting for inflation, that:

  • Medical malpractice premiums are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.
  • Medical malpractice claims are down 45 percent since 2000.
  • Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been very profitable over the last five years.
  • In states that have substantially limited consumers’ ability to go to court for medical malpractice, the insurance premiums for doctors are basically the same as in other states.
New Study Finds Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums have Minimal Effect on Health Care Costs


Malpractice-insurance premiums and liability awards account for less than 2 percent of overall health-care spending, according to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering extra tests or procedures to protect against lawsuits, might add another few percentage points, according to some estimates.

http://www.consumerreports.org/heal...for-high-costs/health-care-security-costs.htm
 
Last edited:

snakembl14

Lurker
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Posts
46
Reaction score
0
Points
91
Location
GB, WI
Eliminate some of the overhead. Why is medical so different from other insurances? Insurance is to protect yourself from unexpected events.

Home Insurance: fire, storm (hopefully never happens)Life insurance: early death (hopefully doesn't happen, but would happen only once)Medical insurance: Every time I go to the doctor, including regular check ups/phsicals.

Why don't I get health insurance for say, medical procedures that cost more than $5,000? Or $1,000? (I don't know quite what that $$ would be) I would then pay/negiotiate my other costs (phsicals/check ups) with my doctor and pay him directly. After my check up, the doc sends paper to the insurance co, they enter it, decide what and what isn't covered, the doc wants to get paid so I pay him, then finally the insurance co sends a check to the doc for what is covered, then the doc has to send me a check. WTF! Health insurance should only be for the bigger/unexpected events + long or life diseases.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Reaction score
11,610
Points
208
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
New Study Finds Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums have Minimal Effect on Health Care Costs


Americans for Insurance Reform, a coalition made up of Consumer Federation of America, ConsumerWatchdog.org and nearly 100 other public interest organizations, released a major study Wednesday on the state of the medical malpractice insurance industry. It found that insurance rates for doctors have dropped significantly while the medical malpractice insurers are earning record profits. The conclusion is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not crippling doctors and that large profits are going to the insurance industry.
Specifically, the study found, adjusting for inflation, that:

  • Medical malpractice premiums are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.
  • Medical malpractice claims are down 45 percent since 2000.
  • Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been very profitable over the last five years.
  • In states that have substantially limited consumers’ ability to go to court for medical malpractice, the insurance premiums for doctors are basically the same as in other states.
New Study Finds Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums have Minimal Effect on Health Care Costs


Malpractice-insurance premiums and liability awards account for less than 2 percent of overall health-care spending, according to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering extra tests or procedures to protect against lawsuits, might add another few percentage points, according to some estimates.

Health-care security, who is to blame for high costs

Since you've clearly devoted some thought and research to healthcare, I'm curious about where you stand on the issue as a whole (forgive me for being too lazy to hunt for it in other threads).

What, if anything, do you think needs to be done about healthcare in the U.S.?
 
Last edited:

D_JuanAFock

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Reaction score
6
Points
103
There needs to be an alternative to the patent system for drugs. 20 years for a new drug is ridiculous. I am diabetic and use Humalog and Lantus, both of which are patented until 2013 or 2014, which means they cost $150 a bottle. Once the generic versions are out that will drop to like $40.

Also, insurance costs for people like me are unreasonably high (partly because drug costs are so high)... it would cost me $550/month to be insured from the state (I have yet to find a private plan that can accept me).

Aside from the fact that I am diabetic, I am 100% healthy, and have been my entire life.
 

Industrialsize

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,224
Reaction score
29,308
Points
293
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Since you've clearly devoted some thought and research to healthcare, I'm curious about where you stand on the issue as whole (forgive me for being too lazy to hunt for it in other threads).

What, if anything, do you think needs to be done about healthcare in the U.S.?
I am 100% behind a nationalized, single payer health care system. Medicare for all.
 

umami_tsunami

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Posts
388
Reaction score
118
Points
163
Location
Philadelphia
The biggest problem with our health care system is that it is entirely a for profit enterprise. The stated mission of the major health care companies is to deliver value to their share holders. Of course, they say it’s to provide quality care blah, blah, but it’s really to make money. Period. That means taking as much money as they can from employers’ contributions and individuals’ premiums and withholding as much care and paying out the least amount they possibly can to actual providers.

It’s the simplest accounting principle of all: asset and liability.

The biggest healthcare companies: Humana, Wellpoint, Cigna, Blue Cross, United Health, Aetna are all publicly traded, for profit businesses. Anyone can see how they are doing financially. I’ll give you a hint- Their making fucking billions and all trading close to there 5 yr highs. Some will complain that profit motive drives innovation and attracts talent, but far more breakthroughs have come from publicly funded, government research than for profit enterprise.

Combine this dynamic with the industrially-farmed, chemically-treated, antibiotic and growth-drug-laden shit people shovel into themselves and you get a great big (and I mean BIG) nation of sick people who just might be OK if they can get their hands on a scrip for some Plavix or some other shit that will keep them alive, and not make them confront their true health issues or change their lifestyle. Why should I not have that double cheeseburger? It only costs $1 and I can just take a pill when my cholesterol hits 300! Of course, the lobbyists for giant shit producers like Monsanto, Con Agra, Nestle and Cargill make sure they get plenty of funding and subsidies so their crap is not only maximizing profit, but also able to undercut responsible producers’ pricing.

It’s all about money and NOBODY gets paid when people are healthy. The entire food and healthcare industry is based on greed, gluttony, laziness and ignorance. We seem to like it this way.
 

OhWiseOne

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
4,512
Reaction score
2,692
Points
298
Location
Florida
New Study Finds Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums have Minimal Effect on Health Care Costs


Americans for Insurance Reform, a coalition made up of Consumer Federation of America, ConsumerWatchdog.org and nearly 100 other public interest organizations, released a major study Wednesday on the state of the medical malpractice insurance industry. It found that insurance rates for doctors have dropped significantly while the medical malpractice insurers are earning record profits. The conclusion is that the cost of medical malpractice insurance is not crippling doctors and that large profits are going to the insurance industry.
Specifically, the study found, adjusting for inflation, that:

  • Medical malpractice premiums are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.
  • Medical malpractice claims are down 45 percent since 2000.
  • Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been very profitable over the last five years.
  • In states that have substantially limited consumers’ ability to go to court for medical malpractice, the insurance premiums for doctors are basically the same as in other states.
New Study Finds Medical Malpractice Insurance Premiums have Minimal Effect on Health Care Costs


Malpractice-insurance premiums and liability awards account for less than 2 percent of overall health-care spending, according to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering extra tests or procedures to protect against lawsuits, might add another few percentage points, according to some estimates.

Health-care security, who is to blame for high costs

I wonder who funds these groups? hmmmmm...And the Congressional Budget Office....There is a solid source...politics...
 

Mensch1351

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,163
Reaction score
187
Points
283
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
So let's be blunt (and brutal). If the bottom line of a health care industry/ company is to maximize profits and minimize expenses, ANY system which makes sure that the sickly children, the elderly (those over 85) and those too poor to afford the cost of health care are denied QUALITY care is preferable! It's just corporate capitalism's subtle way of weeding out those whom they consider a "drain" on the overall system! The sooner they (those listed above) die --- the greater the profits of insuring the healthy! It really has nothing to do with any "morality" of preserving life (kind of ironic don't you think -- given the Conservative Right's intrenchable stance on abortion?)
 

dandelion

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Reaction score
2,695
Points
358
Location
UK
How about some facts instead of supposition:
Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated


Costs Of Defensive Medicine May Be Overstated : Shots - Health Blog : NPR
Yes, sensible, but that doesnt contain any. It does have some more assertions. It says malpractice premiums constitue about 1% of costs, but that is about the only fact. It quotes an estimate by Michelle Mello that defensive medicine costs an additional 1.5%. It suggests that doctors worry disproportionately about being sued, but I dont see that says anything except that they will act more defensively than the real risk would require.


Your second link says the president reckons his bill will save the country 4% of costs (taking the two articles together to equate % with amount) It says a 1996 study, one of the few to consider the issue, found between 5-9% costs attrributable to defensive medicine comparing heart patients in states with more or less risk of litigation. The article then says several other studies, presumably from the 'few' to have considered this, found little or no relation. A 1990 study found no correlation, a 1999 study on cesarean sections found no difference. A 1994 study oncaesarian sections found a small correlation, but apparently concluded it was impossible to disentangle the costs of defensive medicine. GAO and CBO (whoever they are) apparently accept the 1996 study, but argue it only applies to heart medicine. CBO further challenged the 1996 result when the same method was applied to a different set of data. This would suggest there are competing base statistics about costs, but I couldnt from this conclude what those might be or why there would be a disparity.

I would think a more relevant comparison than state to state might be country to country. Are doctors in one state really unaffected by stories about doctors in different states, or given different professional advice on how to treat patients depending on where they practice? This seems to me pretty unlikely! But I suspect international comparisons would immediately be very difficult because if you compared costs in the US and Uk, the Uk seems likely to be way lower. It would then be difficult to disentangle what part of this is due to fear of litigation and what part to other differences.

Says that litigation insurance premiums are falling, which suggests to me that doctors are indeed practicing defensively so that they never get into a situation where they can be sued. That is evidence that defensive medicine is indeed occurring. What we are really talking about is a balance of risk for patients. We all know that if you get absolutely first class care your chances of something going wrong will fall, but the point is we cannot all afford first class care. What is needed is more rough and ready care but consistent care. This may lead to things going wrong which could have been avoided, but also means the money will stretch further where you really need it. Falling litigation premiums is bad news!

Says there is abundant evidence that some expenditure by doctors and hospitals is unnecessary. That doctors and hospitals make money from treating patients, not from keeping them healthy. 12% of costs are insurance company administration and profits. 46% of the money for healthcare is paid by governments, who set industry rates for various things, not necessarily getting the best deal. The health sector spends more lobbying politicians than any other. 25% of healthcare costs are due to lifestyle choices, but that seems a rather different issue whether people would be better off avoiding getting sick.

Once the generic versions are out that will drop to like $40.
But dont think you are being ripped off! A fair summary of all medical research trials is probably that all out of patent medicines are useless and only those in patent are worth using. It is only after patents lapse that evidence emerges about the problems with a drug. Also drug companies choose not to make out of patent medicines, so you cant get them anyway. Drug companies have a vested interest in rubbishing non-patent drugs and in making them unavailable.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Reaction score
2,695
Points
358
Location
UK
So let's be blunt (and brutal). If the bottom line of a health care industry/ company is to maximize profits and minimize expenses, ANY system which makes sure that the sickly children, the elderly (those over 85) and those too poor to afford the cost of health care are denied QUALITY care is preferable! It's just corporate capitalism's subtle way of weeding out those whom they consider a "drain" on the overall system! The sooner they (those listed above) die --- the greater the profits of insuring the healthy! It really has nothing to do with any "morality" of preserving life (kind of ironic don't you think -- given the Conservative Right's intrenchable stance on abortion?)
Any system of health care rationing will inevitably affect the most sickly worst. And be clear, the name of the game everywhere is health care rationing because there is virtually no limit on how much you could spend on every person. Those who come off best under the US system are the rich. In the Uk most health care does not depend on your personal wealth but rather on whether it is affordable to treat your condition. You can of course buy additional private care if you are rich, as is true everywhere. However, the differences in treatment are much less marked than in the US, where the baseline care you get is better the richer you are, or the more insurance you have (which pretty much amounts to the same thing as being rich). The real problem in the US seems to be the big chunk of of the population getting poor care.(and the cost of it, of course)
 

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
427
Reaction score
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
So let's be blunt (and brutal). If the bottom line of a health care industry/ company is to maximize profits and minimize expenses, ANY system which makes sure that the sickly children, the elderly (those over 85) and those too poor to afford the cost of health care are denied QUALITY care is preferable! It's just corporate capitalism's subtle way of weeding out those whom they consider a "drain" on the overall system! The sooner they (those listed above) die --- the greater the profits of insuring the healthy! It really has nothing to do with any "morality" of preserving life (kind of ironic don't you think -- given the Conservative Right's intrenchable stance on abortion?)


I think this is not an idea from the right. From what I have found, it is something put into effect by a democratic president.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-death-panels-medicare/2010/12/26/id/381043
 
Last edited:

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,047
Reaction score
58
Points
193
There are so many factors in the health care mess that it almost becomes mind boggling.

The FDA is for example a joke. I know that "Industrial" who is better at data wrangling than I may be able to do it, but if you doubt what I have to say, look at where the various heads of the FDA departments regulating drugs all came from. Look at what their positions were prior to their entrance into service with the FDA and where their loyalties lie.

Right now, our biggest problem with health care is as the old saying goes" "The Fox watching the henhouse".

Until we remove a number of people because of "conflict of interest" we will never clean up medicine.

How many of you knew the big but now quiet mess over AZT?

When people were dying of complications from HIV in record numbers, there was out and out FRAUD committed and nothing was ever done about it.

The first thing that needs to be done in virtually all levels of government is a major house cleaning and a complete restructuring of what constitutes "conflict of interest".

That has taken such a beating and abuses have gotten progressively worse over the past four decades to the point that morally wrong is now considered "status quo".
 

dandelion

Verified
Gold Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Reaction score
2,695
Points
358
Location
UK
I think this is not an idea from the right. From what I have found, it is something put into effect by a democratic president.

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

I dont see how anyone can think health care has not always been rationed. Though if you look at medicine through history and what doctors now would say about past treatments, sometimes less is more. Funny thing is, this process of weeding out useless treatments still continues.

The NHS has always rationed health care. There used to be and presumably still is a tally system to compare the cost of something to the number of quality life years likely to be provided for the patient by a treatment. There is presently a review panel to assess whether expensive new treatments are cost effective. Fancy new cancer drugs seem to particularly fall into the category of 'expensive'.

In the US there seems to have been some fuss about formalising ways to allocate money to different patients. Why this fuss? At the moment you get treatment according to how rich you are or until the insurance runs out, not according to whether you really need it compared to the next guy. How is this better?

I would say in the UK children tend to rate well on scales of benefit from treatment because they have the potential for a full life ahead of them. Old people probably do not, but it is noticeable that older and older people now get things like hip replacements which help keep them active and able to enjoy life as long as possible. There is no issue in the UK about whether old people are being denied treatment in order to get rid of them. Rationing of health care is generally seen as fair, but care is anyway naturally slanted towards those groups which need it most including the old. If there is a debate at all about the treatment of people with terminal illnesses (which I think would include 'old age') it is a growing call from people in a bad situation to be allowed to end their lives straight away rather than dragging on to the inevitable end.