Insurance companies don't ration health care

[Rick]

Health care costs a lot because of the malfeasance of government, as I have shown. Anyone who thinks the cause can be the cure is just muddle-brained on the issue.

Even if government stops all the ways it keeps driving up health care costs, it'll still be fairly expensive. But so what? What is the mentality of people who think that everything should be cheap for them, for no better reason than that they exist? Pharmaceutical companies should work for 15 years developing a med, maybe spend billions of dollars, but pocketfullofshells thinks they should then give it to him for free.

Why is it that the people who don't bother with the important task of earning money so that they can afford things in life think that someone else should compensate for their laziness/lack of forsight/indifference by giving them something cheap or free?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you have as much cash as you wish to have relative to the worth of the product in negotiation. Yu can have Cadillac health coverage or Yugo health coverage and you will get what you are willing to pay for.




If your company had reaon to believe that it's employees (not just you) were willig to pony up more for better coverage they would see to it. Fact is, they now thats not going to happen.




Wont make any difference because it does nothing to reduce the cost of care. If you do nothing to reduce cost of care ANY insurance is going to cost a lot. And with the government's horrid record on fraud (they are proud to admit how little they spend to combat it in the ultimate irony), it would only be worse.




At least you are admitting the problem.is cost of care. That's a start. That government has made the RX problem worse than it need be is even worse but thats obviously a bi-partisan matter (note obama helped make it worse with obamacare as sometimes pointed out by lefties).

Americans have been bamboozled into thinking insurance was the problem when it was, in fact, cost of care. Why ? Scratch the surface and you'll see its government in bed with AMA and RX etc etc etc.

Yea, it has nothing to do with having to pay well paid scientists by the hundreds of thousands of ours of R and D...the cost of very expensive machines to do the tests, the cost of always having to update with the newest research, the cost of testing, the cost of even finding out what type of treatments work in the first place to, the cost of failed ideas, the cost of PROFITS..of course, the cost of being the only ones to be able to do it with there tech...Patents..for 10 20 years....I mean its all the goverments fault right? I mean cancer treatment would be like 500 bucks if not for the evil goverment right?
No its expensive becuse...medical advancements are expensive...and No for Profit insurance based system will ever offer cheap insurance that covers evrything and for even most people....

And so long as the system is not Universal...How much money you have and what your job is, will always dictate your health care....And for the poorest health care will always be Rationed to you in the smallest amounts.

Rich peoples lives are worth more, poor peoples lives are not valued as much so they can suffer and die....that is our system.

 

[dahermit]

Pharmaceutical companies should work for 15 years developing a med, maybe spend billions of dollars, but pocketfullofshells thinks they should then give it to him for free.

Most pharmaceuticals are delve loped with Government paid research at Universities. The Pharmaceutical companies "participate" in the research and then patent the drugs that come from that government funded (tax dollars) research. They then charge outrageous prices for the drugs for which they did not have to spend the millions that it would have cost them, while at the same time making the claim that the high price is justified by the costly research that they had to do to come up with the drug.
A question for corporate enterprise supporters: Why is it that Canada can purchase drugs at much lower prices from American (most of the pharmaceutical companies are American), pharmaceutical companies, than the same drugs sold in the U.S.? If the price of the drugs were inalignment to the cost of production, how could the drug companies stay in business while selling the drugs to Canada at less than half what they charge Americans?

 

[JellyBean]

but nothing the Republicans have put forth changes that...

not true, did you ever read the repubs plan? It would of changed a lot

 

[Dr.Who]

Yea, it has nothing to do with having to pay well paid scientists by the hundreds of thousands of ours of R and D...the cost of very expensive machines to do the tests, the cost of always having to update with the newest research, the cost of testing, the cost of even finding out what type of treatments work in the first place to, the cost of failed ideas, the cost of PROFITS..of course, the cost of being the only ones to be able to do it with there tech...Patents..for 10 20 years....I mean its all the goverments fault right? I mean cancer treatment would be like 500 bucks if not for the evil goverment right?
No its expensive becuse...medical advancements are expensive...and No for Profit insurance based system will ever offer cheap insurance that covers evrything and for even most people....

And so long as the system is not Universal...How much money you have and what your job is, will always dictate your health care....And for the poorest health care will always be Rationed to you in the smallest amounts.

Rich peoples lives are worth more, poor peoples lives are not valued as much so they can suffer and die....that is our system.

Really good care will never be dirt cheap. But it does cost more because of government involvement. Some of that involvement is good, much of it not so much.

But because a thing is more expensive than someone can afford to pay does not at all mean that it is rationed. But lets stretch that definition and say that it is rationed. Well, it is still better that it be "rationed" by my own resources, and the resources of the companies I hire to manage those for me, than by a bureaucrat. Maybe you disagree and you would like yours controlled by a bureaucrat. Then by all means I won't stop you from doing whatever you want to have yours controlled. But leave your hands off of my rights and the rights of my neighbors.

The solution is not universal coverage as that would only make it more expensive and create real rationing.

A partial solution would be to reduce the amount of government that drives up costs and to increase the forces that drive down costs all while maintaining personal choices and freedoms.

 

[dogtowner]

Yea, it has nothing to do with having to pay well paid scientists by the hundreds of thousands of ours of R and D...the cost of very expensive machines to do the tests, the cost of always having to update with the newest research, the cost of testing, the cost of even finding out what type of treatments work in the first place to, the cost of failed ideas, the cost of PROFITS..of course, the cost of being the only ones to be able to do it with there tech...Patents..for 10 20 years....I mean its all the goverments fault right? I mean cancer treatment would be like 500 bucks if not for the evil goverment right?
No its expensive becuse...medical advancements are expensive...and No for Profit insurance based system will ever offer cheap insurance that covers evrything and for even most people....

And so long as the system is not Universal...How much money you have and what your job is, will always dictate your health care....And for the poorest health care will always be Rationed to you in the smallest amounts.

Rich peoples lives are worth more, poor peoples lives are not valued as much so they can suffer and die....that is our system.

By this argument, Rolls Royces are rationed. Fact is they just cost more because those guys spend a lot making them better. Yugos get you from A to B also, not the same experience but the goal is still met.

Tests are done without need as lawyers say you must to avoid being sued. All that r&d only gets done as they know the end product will get used. Most of teh world gets along with simpler medicine and absent externals such as corrupt government not seeing to clean water and such it aint so bad. And there are people in America today that never see doctors but do the sensible things to maintain health.

I realize what you wish for is to have this become a "right" and therefore "free" but its not right, its a product. Buy the product if you want or do not if you don't. But don't expect someone to give it to you.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Really good care will never be dirt cheap. But it does cost more because of government involvement. Some of that involvement is good, much of it not so much.

But because a thing is more expensive than someone can afford to pay does not at all mean that it is rationed. But lets stretch that definition and say that it is rationed. Well, it is still better that it be "rationed" by my own resources, and the resources of the companies I hire to manage those for me, than by a bureaucrat. Maybe you disagree and you would like yours controlled by a bureaucrat. Then by all means I won't stop you from doing whatever you want to have yours controlled. But leave your hands off of my rights and the rights of my neighbors.

The solution is not universal coverage as that would only make it more expensive and create real rationing.

A partial solution would be to reduce the amount of government that drives up costs and to increase the forces that drive down costs all while maintaining personal choices and freedoms.

Funny, the places with universal coverage...pay less per person per year in health care...aka less expensive...

Also got news for you, under the new health care bill....you can still go get covered for anything you want...by any insurance company....no one is stopping you....only thing stopped is, Insurance companies not providing health care options for the people who are sick already but cost to much, preexisting conditions, help for young people in low paying entry level jobs but can't be on there rents insurance anymore...and people who could pay for insurance...but choose not to, and have there health care covered by the tax payer and higher costs.

And what costs do you want to get rid off from the government? cost of making sure they are safe?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

By this argument, Rolls Royces are rationed. Fact is they just cost more because those guys spend a lot making them better. Yugos get you from A to B also, not the same experience but the goal is still met.

Tests are done without need as lawyers say you must to avoid being sued. All that r&d only gets done as they know the end product will get used. Most of teh world gets along with simpler medicine and absent externals such as corrupt government not seeing to clean water and such it aint so bad. And there are people in America today that never see doctors but do the sensible things to maintain health.

I realize what you wish for is to have this become a "right" and therefore "free" but its not right, its a product. Buy the product if you want or do not if you don't. But don't expect someone to give it to you.

for a "pro life" party, its sad that you think health care is a Product that should be bought and sold like a new car...if you can't afford it, to bad, die.

 

[dogtowner]

for a "pro life" party, its sad that you think health care is a Product that should be bought and sold like a new car...if you can't afford it, to bad, die.

perhaps you mistook pro-life, has mainly to do with murdering babies. most people find murder to be bad.

and health care has always been a product.

 

[Rick]

Funny, the places with universal coverage...pay less per person per year in health care...aka less expensive...

That's because they RATION it! There is NO SUCH THING as "universal coverage" - just a very low level of rationed care that allows people to die.

Known cures and meds, readily available in the US, are EXCLUDED because they don't fit into the government's rationing budget. There are a number of rationing mechanisms - eg, under the UK's NHS, a given district is allowed a specific number of a particular type of surgery a year. So if they allow 5 a year, and you are the sixth one who needs a heart bypass, you are just told the standard NHS brush off: "Nothing can be done", and go home to die.

The "insurance companies ration" Big Lie was concocted by the leftwing to convince the legions of idiots with a vote that the choice is between expensive rationed care versus "free" rationed care - of course that dichotomy has been exposed as a dangerous deliberate falsehood.

 

[Rick]

for a "pro life" party, its sad that you think health care is a Product that should be bought and sold like a new car...if you can't afford it, to bad, die.

Once again, I imagine that leftwingers should be jailed and forced to learn economics before they are allowed out. That it would be bought and sold, without the many current harmful market intrusions by government which sky rocket its price and limit its availability, would drive its cost down to the lowest levels. In demanding that the very entity, government, which has caused so much harm to health care in the US, be allowed to take complete control, you have this issue as ass-backwards as anyone possibly can.

 

[Dr.Who]

Funny, the places with universal coverage...pay less per person per year in health care...aka less expensive...

They pay less because they get much less. Not only do they get less of the important care they need but they also get a whole lot less of the cosmetic surgeries that cause the US health care bill to be so much higher. They also have hidden costs. For example in the US a doctor must pay to go to medical school but in France the state pays for medical school. When people add up the cost of the French system they do not include the cost the state pays for tuition but it should be included.

 

[Dr.Who]

Also got news for you, under the new health care bill....you can still go get covered for anything you want...by any insurance company....no one is stopping you....only thing stopped is, Insurance companies not providing health care options for the people who are sick already but cost to much, preexisting conditions, help for young people in low paying entry level jobs but can't be on there rents insurance anymore...and people who could pay for insurance...but choose not to, and have there health care covered by the tax payer and higher costs.

Under the new law if I want to get a policy that does not include maternity leave I cannot get it. If I want to get a policy that only covers expenses that are catastrophic and I want to pay for all the everyday stuff myself - saving the whole system tons - I cannot get it.

So yes someone is stopping me. Well they would be if the courts did not at present call the law unconstitutional.

People should not be able to use a product before they buy it - basic econ 101.

Why can't people be on their parents policies? I would think that any insurance company in the country would WANT to have their customers name any dependent at all so that they could CHARGE more in premiums.

Wanna bet that the only reason adults cannot be on their parents policy is that there is a law against it?

OR

That if there is no law against it that many companies do offer insurance to adult dependents and the only reason someone would have a policy that does not extend coverage to adult dependents is that they choose that policy rather than another?

 

[Dr.Who]

And what costs do you want to get rid off from the government? cost of making sure they are safe?

In my earlier post I said:

"Some of that involvement is good, much of it not so much."

So I would want the government to stick to that which is a defined government role in the constitution and to stop doing that which is not a defined role.


A defined role would be protecting people from fraud and abuse. So the3 cost of keeping people safe would be good costs. The cost of giving subsidies to insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies and the thousands and thousands of pages of laws that do not keep people safe are the bad costs. An example of a bad law in the health care field would be the law that tries to eliminate physician owned hospitals (mainly to appease non-physician owned hospitals) if they are not already open by this year. This reduces competition and limits choice for consumers and of course drives up costs.

" But rules relating to health, safety, the environment and national security have multiplied. Some of these are necessary, but many are not. For example, by one estimate, American health-care regulations cost $169 billion a year more than they yield in benefits, and lead to 7m Americans not being able to afford health insurance. By another estimate, measures to keep terrorists off aeroplanes cost lives by prompting people to drive instead of fly, which is nine times more dangerous.

And even the worst regulation usually heaps benefits on a small group, while its costs are widely spread. The beneficiaries thus lobby hard to keep each rule, while its victims do nothing. The late Mancur Olson, an economist, predicted that interest groups will grow in number until they cause their host society to slip into economic decline."

 

[Rick]

They pay less because they get much less. Not only do they get less of the important care they need but they also get a whole lot less of the cosmetic surgeries that cause the US health care bill to be so much higher. They also have hidden costs. For example in the US a doctor must pay to go to medical school but in France the state pays for medical school. When people add up the cost of the French system they do not include the cost the state pays for tuition but it should be included.

Right, and everyone pays - what? - 50% income tax to support "low cost" rationed "care"?