Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #1
choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
https://spectator.org/to-eliminate-obama...reduction/

It’s no grand revelation that Republicans have bungled the Obamacare repeal bill beyond belief. Senator Mitch McConnell wants a Senate vote on full repeal of Obamacare with two years to come up with a replacement. This would be the ideal solution, but it appears he lacks the necessary 50 votes for passage.
In that event, there is still a path to victory through a smart change in tactics and messaging.
What is killing the Republican reform effort is the fatuous Congressional Budget Office projections that some 20 million people will lose their health insurance under virtually any GOP plan. Voters don’t support that outcome.
To win this fight the GOP must change the narrative and focus on the “Three Cs of Health Care Reform”: ‎ Choice, Competition, and Cost reduction. These will lower premiums to make health insurance more affordable for tens of millions of Americans. They are also popular principles with voters. Obamacare promised all of these things and delivered the opposite: less choice and competition and much higher costs to families....
07-24-2017 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #2
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
I said this years ago....

The biggest problem with the ACA is that because it focused on insurance, not care... that we've increased the demand without increasing the supply and somehow this is supposed to lead to lower costs (or they are mandated)

The solution is to increase supply, forcing much primary care, especially preventative care where you're dealing with a generally healthy person and thus no 'care' is involved (through legislation and peer review) to lower level healthcare providers.
07-24-2017 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Godzilla Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,595
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 88
I Root For: TXST
Location:
Post: #3
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
"Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated?" - DJT 05-stirthepot
07-24-2017 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #4
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 11:37 AM)Godzilla Wrote:  "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated?" - DJT 05-stirthepot

Well....the thing is---it doesnt have to be. We literally made it that way. It should operate like any other service. But instead---we have a system where the end user doesnt pay for the service, rarely knows the true cost, doesn't shop (probably would find it impossible to "shop" even if he tried), and has multiple layers of buearacracy to deal with on the healthcare side and the insurance side that stand between the provider and user. Its complicated because we made it that way. It doesn't have to be this way---and it shouldnt be this way.

The key to fixing healthcare is to make it like any other service. Instead, we continue on with the current model because "its the way we have always done it". People gripe about the Millenials---but that group tends to challenge the "its the way its always been done" notion at every turn. I suspect the current system's days are numbered. People like to criticize the Millinials, but those kids will not support something so expensive, antiquated, and inefficient.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2017 04:30 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-24-2017 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,384
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6862
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #5
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 11:37 AM)Godzilla Wrote:  "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated?" - DJT 05-stirthepot

Well....the thing is---it doesnt have to be. We literally made it that way. It should operate like any other service. But instead---we have a system where the end user doesnt pay for the service, rarely knows the true cost, doesn't shop (probably would find it impossible to "shop" even if he tried), and has multiple layers of buearacracy to deal with on the healthcare side and the insurance side that stand between the provider and user. Its complicated because we made it that way. It doesn't have to be this way---and it shouldnt be this way.

The key to fixing healthcare is to make it like any other service. Instead, we continue on with the current model because "its the way we have always done it".

...which is due to a boatload of spending by lobbyists....

that's another portion of the dialogue that is 'conveniently' omitted in most discussions...

they make the tobacco lobbyists look like coach pitch baseball and outpaces agribusiness by almost 4:3 in the current year.....that's a lot of dough protecting the gorging and gouging....

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc...php?id=F09

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc...php?id=A02

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=A
07-24-2017 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #6
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 11:37 AM)Godzilla Wrote:  "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated?" - DJT 05-stirthepot

Well....the thing is---it doesnt have to be. We literally made it that way. It should operate like any other service. But instead---we have a system where the end user doesnt pay for the service, rarely knows the true cost, doesn't shop (probably would find it impossible to "shop" even if he tried), and has multiple layers of buearacracy to deal with on the healthcare side and the insurance side that stand between the provider and user. Its complicated because we made it that way. It doesn't have to be this way---and it shouldnt be this way.

The key to fixing healthcare is to make it like any other service. Instead, we continue on with the current model because "its the way we have always done it". People gripe about the Millenials---but that group tends to challenge the "its the way its always been done" notion at every turn. I suspect the current system's days are numbers. The Millinials will not supports something so expensive, antiquated, and inefficient.

In many ways its like colleges. They don't compete on price, they compete on fancy gyms and student unions and cool buildings.
07-24-2017 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Crebman Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,407
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 552
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I said this years ago....

The biggest problem with the ACA is that because it focused on insurance, not care... that we've increased the demand without increasing the supply and somehow this is supposed to lead to lower costs (or they are mandated)

The solution is to increase supply, forcing much primary care, especially preventative care where you're dealing with a generally healthy person and thus no 'care' is involved (through legislation and peer review) to lower level healthcare providers.

The key to it all is to increase the supply.

The likely outcome of trying to increase supply is that the lobbyists whose clients profit from restricting entering the supply side of the equation can spread around enough money to keep the supply pool limited.

Those already in the industry are happy and the politicians receiving the lobby money are happy - screw everyday Joe...................
07-24-2017 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,384
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6862
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #8
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 01:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I said this years ago....

The biggest problem with the ACA is that because it focused on insurance, not care... that we've increased the demand without increasing the supply and somehow this is supposed to lead to lower costs (or they are mandated)

The solution is to increase supply, forcing much primary care, especially preventative care where you're dealing with a generally healthy person and thus no 'care' is involved (through legislation and peer review) to lower level healthcare providers.

The key to it all is to increase the supply.

The likely outcome of trying to increase supply is that the lobbyists whose clients profit from restricting entering the supply side of the equation can spread around enough money to keep the supply pool limited.

Those already in the industry are happy and the politicians receiving the lobby money are happy - screw everyday Joe...................

there's no doubting hambone is viewing from the perspective of his interests.....he knows how the game is played....I don't blame him one bit....

however, you also understand that other 'rarely mentioned' reason that drives the current situation.....

you'd think the dumbarses would've learned from the banking/mortgage ponzi fiascos.....

but nah.....

the 21st century capitalist is turning back into another version of creating fiefdom as the day grows longer....

if we don't start investing in repairing/building/mfg again with PEOPLE, it's over long term for the USD in it's current version....I give it two decades 'tops' to maintain current valuation

that's the true beauty of what DJT is trying to attempt to accomplish.....still many roadblocks in his path.....

it's scary how poorly the USD has been managed in my lifetime.....what a squandered gift.....the U.S. should be the dynamite when everyone else was holding firecrackers....

historically, it will be viewed as the biggest ****-up in the history of mankind (viewing from post wwII)
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2017 01:49 PM by stinkfist.)
07-24-2017 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #9
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 01:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I said this years ago....

The biggest problem with the ACA is that because it focused on insurance, not care... that we've increased the demand without increasing the supply and somehow this is supposed to lead to lower costs (or they are mandated)

The solution is to increase supply, forcing much primary care, especially preventative care where you're dealing with a generally healthy person and thus no 'care' is involved (through legislation and peer review) to lower level healthcare providers.

The key to it all is to increase the supply.

The likely outcome of trying to increase supply is that the lobbyists whose clients profit from restricting entering the supply side of the equation can spread around enough money to keep the supply pool limited.

Those already in the industry are happy and the politicians receiving the lobby money are happy - screw everyday Joe...................

but who are those people? Doctors? There aren't enough of them to matter/

I guess it's really the lawyers somewhat conspiring with them... in that the lawyers want to keep the 'deep pocket doctor' and the doctor wants to keep the idea that 'he is God' and nobody else can do his job??
07-24-2017 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crebman Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,407
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 552
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #10
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 01:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I said this years ago....

The biggest problem with the ACA is that because it focused on insurance, not care... that we've increased the demand without increasing the supply and somehow this is supposed to lead to lower costs (or they are mandated)

The solution is to increase supply, forcing much primary care, especially preventative care where you're dealing with a generally healthy person and thus no 'care' is involved (through legislation and peer review) to lower level healthcare providers.

The key to it all is to increase the supply.

The likely outcome of trying to increase supply is that the lobbyists whose clients profit from restricting entering the supply side of the equation can spread around enough money to keep the supply pool limited.

Those already in the industry are happy and the politicians receiving the lobby money are happy - screw everyday Joe...................

but who are those people? Doctors? There aren't enough of them to matter/

I guess it's really the lawyers somewhat conspiring with them... in that the lawyers want to keep the 'deep pocket doctor' and the doctor wants to keep the idea that 'he is God' and nobody else can do his job??

Honestly Ham, I don't know who the "groups" are that are restricting the pool of doctors. I just know that the "Industry" knows that restricting the supply will do exactly what is happening, up the cost on the demand side............and the politicians have their hands out and are helping to keep it that way.

There are smart people in Washington, I can't believe that no one there has had the eureka moment and said, "Hey, you know if we increase the supply, that will likely drive down the cost."

You are in the industry, don't you find it a bit perplexing that NO ONE in any power position ever mentions increasing the supply??
07-24-2017 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 02:11 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly Ham, I don't know who the "groups" are that are restricting the pool of doctors. I just know that the "Industry" knows that restricting the supply will do exactly what is happening, up the cost on the demand side............and the politicians have their hands out and are helping to keep it that way.

There are smart people in Washington, I can't believe that no one there has had the eureka moment and said, "Hey, you know if we increase the supply, that will likely drive down the cost."

You are in the industry, don't you find it a bit perplexing that NO ONE in any power position ever mentions increasing the supply??


Perplexing yes, but not surprising.

First, we're talking PCPs... not specialists. Doctors by and large have big egos so they don't want more doctors (makes them less special) but they also don't want to do the mundane stuff... and again, by and large they don't... but regulators hold them responsible for all of those things done by their subordinates.

Politicians have spoken for 2 decades now at least about not having enough doctors, but they haven't done anything about it. Sure, there are more med schools, but that doesn't mean there are more practicing primary care physicians.

Like most political things, the money is in the argument, not in the solution. Politicians don't want to solve it because it is a MASSIVE amount of money with direct ties to seniors through CMS, the military through the VA, the poor through medicaid which is the states, but the feds take their stabs at that as well and of course administer the medicaid money... and of course federal employees. IOW, they're already neck deep in perhaps 60% of all of it BEFORE the aca.

The wealthy really don't care. Even if policies started costing $50,000 per year, they'd pay them or self-insure. Do we really think Buffet can't pay for $10mm in lifetime maximum care? or $20mm? or 50mm? He probably pays an MD $500,000 /yr to be on retainer for him and his family.... and then pays the $2500 'no insurance' penalty.

The poor just want care and they can't afford care...

Those are voting blocks.

The middle and upper middle class workers are stuck footing the bill...

and so far, enough people buy into the 'public good' that they don't do the math before they vote or they buy the politicians lies about whom is paying for it.

We've been able to hide the real cost of providing healthcare through the stimulus

Nobody goes back to the CBO after the fact to see how close their projections were.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2017 04:23 PM by Hambone10.)
07-24-2017 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,384
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6862
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #12
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 02:11 PM)Crebman Wrote:  Honestly Ham, I don't know who the "groups" are that are restricting the pool of doctors. I just know that the "Industry" knows that restricting the supply will do exactly what is happening, up the cost on the demand side............and the politicians have their hands out and are helping to keep it that way.

There are smart people in Washington, I can't believe that no one there has had the eureka moment and said, "Hey, you know if we increase the supply, that will likely drive down the cost."

You are in the industry, don't you find it a bit perplexing that NO ONE in any power position ever mentions increasing the supply??


Perplexing yes, but not surprising.

First, we're talking PCPs... not specialists. Doctors by and large have big egos so they don't want more doctors (makes them less special) but they also don't want to do the mundane stuff... and again, by and large they don't... but regulators hold them responsible for all of those things done by their subordinates.

Politicians have spoken for 2 decades now at least about not having enough doctors, but they haven't done anything about it. Sure, there are more med schools, but that doesn't mean there are more practicing primary care physicians.

Like most political things, the money is in the argument, not in the solution. Politicians don't want to solve it because it is a MASSIVE amount of money with direct ties to seniors through CMS, the military through the VA, the poor through medicaid which is the states, but the feds take their stabs at that as well and of course administer the medicaid money... and of course federal employees. IOW, they're already neck deep in perhaps 60% of all of it BEFORE the aca.

The wealthy really don't care. Even if policies started costing $50,000 per year, they'd pay them or self-insure. Do we really think Buffet can't pay for $10mm in lifetime maximum care? or $20mm? or 50mm? He probably pays an MD $500,000 /yr to be on retainer for him and his family.... and then pays the $2500 'no insurance' penalty.

The poor just want care and they can't afford care...

Those are voting blocks.

The middle and upper middle class workers are stuck footing the bill...

and so far, enough people buy into the 'public good' that they don't do the math before they vote or they buy the politicians lies about whom is paying for it.

We've been able to hide the real cost of providing healthcare through the stimulus

Nobody goes back to the CBO after the fact to see how close their projections were.

I like it when you're frank.....that's XACLY what is going on!

major props on all those words.....I read 'em all!
07-24-2017 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #13
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
And yet a number of Republicans-and all the Democrats-appear unwilling to even discuss this.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/s...spartanntp

McConnell is, unless bluffing, finally going to force them to vote tomorrow. To debate the bill or refuse to even debate it?
Any Republican who refuses to even debate it should be recalled, or if that's not possible, beaten in the primaries.
07-24-2017 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #14
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 11:37 AM)Godzilla Wrote:  "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated?" - DJT 05-stirthepot

Well....the thing is---it doesnt have to be. We literally made it that way. It should operate like any other service. But instead---we have a system where the end user doesnt pay for the service, rarely knows the true cost, doesn't shop (probably would find it impossible to "shop" even if he tried), and has multiple layers of buearacracy to deal with on the healthcare side and the insurance side that stand between the provider and user. Its complicated because we made it that way. It doesn't have to be this way---and it shouldnt be this way.

The key to fixing healthcare is to make it like any other service. Instead, we continue on with the current model because "its the way we have always done it".

...which is due to a boatload of spending by lobbyists....

that's another portion of the dialogue that is 'conveniently' omitted in most discussions...

they make the tobacco lobbyists look like coach pitch baseball and outpaces agribusiness by almost 4:3 in the current year.....that's a lot of dough protecting the gorging and gouging....

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc...php?id=F09

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc...php?id=A02

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=A


The issue with the ACA or Obamacare was that the health insurance companies lobbied to have this forced mandates in the law to get passed so that they will cover the sick. What it did was not fixed the problems inside the health insurance industry, it made it even worst. ACA would work if there were some type of health insurance reforms that the health insurance companies do not like. The health insurance industry was the problem for a long time, and the ACA points the spotlight on them which they do not like. Voters and people are looking at the health insurance companies as the main culprits for our failing healthcare system that started a long time ago before Obama was even borned.
07-24-2017 08:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 68,384
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 6862
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: who knows?
Post: #15
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 08:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-24-2017 11:37 AM)Godzilla Wrote:  "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated?" - DJT 05-stirthepot

Well....the thing is---it doesnt have to be. We literally made it that way. It should operate like any other service. But instead---we have a system where the end user doesnt pay for the service, rarely knows the true cost, doesn't shop (probably would find it impossible to "shop" even if he tried), and has multiple layers of buearacracy to deal with on the healthcare side and the insurance side that stand between the provider and user. Its complicated because we made it that way. It doesn't have to be this way---and it shouldnt be this way.

The key to fixing healthcare is to make it like any other service. Instead, we continue on with the current model because "its the way we have always done it".

...which is due to a boatload of spending by lobbyists....

that's another portion of the dialogue that is 'conveniently' omitted in most discussions...

they make the tobacco lobbyists look like coach pitch baseball and outpaces agribusiness by almost 4:3 in the current year.....that's a lot of dough protecting the gorging and gouging....

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc...php?id=F09

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusc...php?id=A02

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?id=A


The issue with the ACA or Obamacare was that the health insurance companies lobbied to have this forced mandates in the law to get passed so that they will cover the sick. What it did was not fixed the problems inside the health insurance industry, it made it even worst. ACA would work if there were some type of health insurance reforms that the health insurance companies do not like. The health insurance industry was the problem for a long time, and the ACA points the spotlight on them which they do not like. Voters and people are looking at the health insurance companies as the main culprits for our failing healthcare system that started a long time ago before Obama was even borned.

yes

NO!

the aging population with cash and siphon drain is the problem....it's called "capitalism via a raping"

focusing on the USD relative to overall numbers is a sound investment fundamental......nobody gives two shites about the meek until it garners attention or hits their family....

welcome to reality.....that I do understand....as do you....you're just on the wrong end.....
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2017 09:03 PM by stinkfist.)
07-24-2017 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-24-2017 08:50 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The issue with the ACA or Obamacare was that the health insurance companies lobbied to have this forced mandates in the law to get passed so that they will cover the sick. What it did was not fixed the problems inside the health insurance industry, it made it even worst. ACA would work if there were some type of health insurance reforms that the health insurance companies do not like. The health insurance industry was the problem for a long time, and the ACA points the spotlight on them which they do not like. Voters and people are looking at the health insurance companies as the main culprits for our failing healthcare system that started a long time ago before Obama was even borned.

The reason for the mandate is if you are going to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, you need some provision to overcome the free rider problem--otherwise people will simply wait until they are sick to buy health insurance, and the rates will necessarily skyrocket. The problem with the Obamacare mandate is that the penalty is too small. For many people, paying the penalty and taking their chances makes more sense than buying insurance that they can't afford. If you're going to use the stick approach, the penalty needs to be somewhere north of $2,000 per year per person, in order to make insurance economically attractive. Or you could go the carrot route and provide the first $2,000 or so of coverage like Bismarck, or a $2,000 refundable tax credit for buying insurance like Heritage. By the way, whatever amount you sent, you are going to see every insurance company on the planet coming out with a policy with that as the sticker price. You don't see that right now because you can't write a policy for the amount of the penalty, certainly not one that would fit through all the hoops required to qualify for removing the penalty.

You could actually get from Obamacare to Bismarck. Replace the stick with a properly sized carrot. Do the other republican ideas to enhance competition--strengthen health spending/savings accounts, interstate purchases. Get rid of Medicare, which would become redundant. This also saves the states tons of money. Cut back Medicaid, to reflect the offsetting of the basic subsidy. Then hack away at the layers of federal bureaucracy that have been imposed by Obamacare and prior legislation. Let competition take the place of regulation to the maximum extent possible.

Now go to work on the providers' cost side. Provide free med school for anyone who commits to work on a salary for ten years on staff of government, charity, and/or non-profit hospitals. Adopt Swedish no-fault malpractice. Greatly expand the role of NPs and PAs (this is happening naturally now, as a result of market forces, but do everything we can to speed it up).

My guess is that in the resulting environment, the insurance carriers would experiment with all sorts of models for providing cheaper basic care.---doc in the box, and so forth.

The real problem with prescription costs is that foreign governments insist on requiring drug companies to provide them to national health care systems at marginal cost of production, so the burden of R&D costs falls entirely on US consumers. Make it a violation of US law for any representative of any foreign government to require a price that does not include a fair share of R&D costs. Exempt developing nations with GDP per capita less than some threshold number. I'd love to see it written so that you could get something like in rem jurisdiction over any representative of any such government, then go down to the UN and start handcuffing people, but I don't think that's doable. On the company side, if any company accepts such a foreign deal on any drug, the patent for that drug expires in one year. The problem I would see with this approach is that you'd start having even more patent violations overseas than we do now, and that would have a chilling effect on R&D, so there would need to be some strong prohibitions. I would make it a violation of US law for any foreign government and/or drug producer to enter into a contract for any rip off drug. This is an issue where we really need to play hardball.
07-25-2017 07:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #17
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
This article points out that single payer is simply rationing access.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/single...le/2629120


"Supporters of single-payer claim that it would eliminate wasteful spending and improve the quality of care. The reality is quite different. Single-payer systems ration healthcare, slow the development of life-saving drugs and medical devices, and hamstring economic growth.

Single-payer systems control costs primarily by limiting access to healthcare. In the United Kingdom's National Health Service, 5 million patients will languish on waiting lists for non-emergency surgeries, such as hip replacements, by 2019. The president of the country's emergency room doctors association warned earlier this year that wait times are causing "untold patient misery" and that the NHS is "broken."

In Canada, patients wait more than nine weeks between referral from a general practitioner and consultation with a specialist. By comparison, American patients wait less than four weeks, on average. Fewer than 4 percent of Americans who need non-emergency surgeries must wait longer than four months, compared to 18 percent of Canadians.

In many cases, single-payer systems force patients to wait indefinitely for lifesaving medicines — again, to keep costs down.

For instance, Britain's NHS only permits 10,000 people per year to receive highly advanced drugs that cure hepatitis C, a deadly infectious disease that afflicts 215,000 Britons.

As of late 2015, the NHS covered just 38 percent of cancer medicines approved for sale in 2014 and 2015. Canada's national health system offered access to 24 percent of those drugs; Spain's, only 5 percent."
07-25-2017 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #18
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
That's how they control costs.
07-25-2017 08:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #19
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-25-2017 08:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  This article points out that single payer is simply rationing access.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/single...le/2629120


"Supporters of single-payer claim that it would eliminate wasteful spending and improve the quality of care. The reality is quite different. Single-payer systems ration healthcare, slow the development of life-saving drugs and medical devices, and hamstring economic growth.

Single-payer systems control costs primarily by limiting access to healthcare. In the United Kingdom's National Health Service, 5 million patients will languish on waiting lists for non-emergency surgeries, such as hip replacements, by 2019. The president of the country's emergency room doctors association warned earlier this year that wait times are causing "untold patient misery" and that the NHS is "broken."

In Canada, patients wait more than nine weeks between referral from a general practitioner and consultation with a specialist. By comparison, American patients wait less than four weeks, on average. Fewer than 4 percent of Americans who need non-emergency surgeries must wait longer than four months, compared to 18 percent of Canadians.

In many cases, single-payer systems force patients to wait indefinitely for lifesaving medicines — again, to keep costs down.

For instance, Britain's NHS only permits 10,000 people per year to receive highly advanced drugs that cure hepatitis C, a deadly infectious disease that afflicts 215,000 Britons.

As of late 2015, the NHS covered just 38 percent of cancer medicines approved for sale in 2014 and 2015. Canada's national health system offered access to 24 percent of those drugs; Spain's, only 5 percent."

Yet its the libturds system of choice. Cause its free!
07-25-2017 08:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OldOwlNewHeel2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 176
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 16
I Root For: Rice/UNC
Location:
Post: #20
RE: choice, competition and cost-keys to health care
(07-25-2017 08:58 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  
(07-25-2017 08:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  This article points out that single payer is simply rationing access.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/single...le/2629120


"Supporters of single-payer claim that it would eliminate wasteful spending and improve the quality of care. The reality is quite different. Single-payer systems ration healthcare, slow the development of life-saving drugs and medical devices, and hamstring economic growth.

Single-payer systems control costs primarily by limiting access to healthcare. In the United Kingdom's National Health Service, 5 million patients will languish on waiting lists for non-emergency surgeries, such as hip replacements, by 2019. The president of the country's emergency room doctors association warned earlier this year that wait times are causing "untold patient misery" and that the NHS is "broken."

In Canada, patients wait more than nine weeks between referral from a general practitioner and consultation with a specialist. By comparison, American patients wait less than four weeks, on average. Fewer than 4 percent of Americans who need non-emergency surgeries must wait longer than four months, compared to 18 percent of Canadians.

In many cases, single-payer systems force patients to wait indefinitely for lifesaving medicines — again, to keep costs down.

For instance, Britain's NHS only permits 10,000 people per year to receive highly advanced drugs that cure hepatitis C, a deadly infectious disease that afflicts 215,000 Britons.

As of late 2015, the NHS covered just 38 percent of cancer medicines approved for sale in 2014 and 2015. Canada's national health system offered access to 24 percent of those drugs; Spain's, only 5 percent."

Yet its the libturds system of choice. Cause its free!

This is the kind of hard-hitting analysis I come here for.
07-25-2017 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.