Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Case for Medicare for All
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,794
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #61
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-05-2019 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(08-05-2019 11:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's make sure we're on the same page.

You do know that the US has countless not-for-profit and non-profit businesses in operation, right?

Wow... Really?

I have very intimate knowledge of healthcare finance... and you admitted you don't know... but you 'read' something somewhere... so I asked you a very direct question in order to help you understand what you read... and you come back with this?

being 'not for profit' and 'not making a profit' are not the same thing.

I thought the same thing when you asked me your question, which had nothing to do with healthcare finance, but basic business principles.

Your question of why would companies operate if they can't generate a profit is answered easily by pointing out that numerous companies like that exist in the US -so there are obviously reasons for them to operate. Likely just a misunderstanding in how things were stated.
08-05-2019 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,773
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #62
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-05-2019 03:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-05-2019 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(08-05-2019 11:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let's make sure we're on the same page.

You do know that the US has countless not-for-profit and non-profit businesses in operation, right?

Wow... Really?

I have very intimate knowledge of healthcare finance... and you admitted you don't know... but you 'read' something somewhere... so I asked you a very direct question in order to help you understand what you read... and you come back with this?

being 'not for profit' and 'not making a profit' are not the same thing.

I thought the same thing when you asked me your question, which had nothing to do with healthcare finance, but basic business principles.

Your question of why would companies operate if they can't generate a profit is answered easily by pointing out that numerous companies like that exist in the US -so there are obviously reasons for them to operate. Likely just a misunderstanding in how things were stated.


No they don't. That is entirely my point. I asked why they would engage in a business with significant risk of loss, and no mechanism to cover those losses. In insurance, they run reserves against future losses, and by managing those reserves, they manage their profitability.

Being 'not for profit' and 'not making a profit' are NOT the same thing.

You are equating the two.
08-05-2019 04:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 73
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #63
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
"Not for profit" in healthcare...What a joke.
08-15-2019 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #64
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
I just want a system that works primarily to the benefit of patients and providers. What system is that? If patients are happy and providers are happy, the system is probably working reasonably well and reasonably efficiently.

I don't think true single-payer works in this country, as americans aren't the combination of high costs, unhealthy population, diverse population (geographically, culturally, and genetically) work against making it an affordable system. Most of the countries that seem to have more success have more homogenous populations than the USA and are far smaller with fewer isolated rural populations.

All that said, I could get behind a partial-single payer system that:
1) covered everyone up through either 18 or 21, because I don't believe kids' health should depend on their parents' wealth (I just made up that sweet rhyme on the fly!);
2) provided backup coverage to everyone over age 60 (or so), because that removes a lot of the highest cost care from the private market (basically Medicare);
3) provided catastrophic coverage for everyone that fell between those ages, where the government would start paying costs instead of insurance after a certain coverage level (this would reduce costs for the private insurance market and guarantee expensive life-saving care).

The Bismark plan sounds intriguing for the working-age population. And I'd be happy to see a public option, so long as the public-option wasn't completely undercutting the private market by forcing providers to accept below-market payment. If the private market can provide more efficient and effective coverage ... great! If the government plan can provide more efficient and effective coverage ... great! Should we really care who provides the coverage, so long as it is working? I want doctors making most of my healthcare decisions, not insurance company employees or government bureaucrats.

Time to go away for a few months before I check back into the Quad again..
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2019 11:13 AM by mrbig.)
09-03-2019 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #65
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(08-02-2019 11:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

It either covered or not covered, not a decision. Your biases are showing.

It's a decision, and they can even change their minds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/heal...671935002/
02-06-2020 10:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #66
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-06-2020 10:13 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 11:24 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(08-02-2019 10:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Single-payer cuts costs for one reason. As a monopoly, THEY get to decide what health care you get, not you. If you're happy with letting someone else make your health care decisions, go for it. I'm not.

For many Americans, insurance companies are already doing this, right? If my doctor says I need a procedure and my insurance company decides not to cover it, my choices may be debt or death.

It either covered or not covered, not a decision. Your biases are showing.

It's a decision, and they can even change their minds.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/heal...671935002/




Darla Markley, 53, said

– although Markley saidshe and Mayo had gotten approval.

Sounds like a case of she said, they said.

Neither side can/will produce the permission letter.

In any case, the crux of the decision is whether or not the tests were covered. There is no indication that the insurance company has decided not to pay for something they consider covered.

Man, this is old.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 10:44 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
02-06-2020 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,244
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #67
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
Hate to tell you this, but medicare makes the same sort of decisions on what is covered or not covered, and to what extent. If the patient decides to go ahead with a uncovered or partially covered test, they may be charged the difference. It's not like medicare has a policy of "do whatever you want, incur any amount of charges, and we will send a check".

coverage might depend on where yo live
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 10:52 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
02-06-2020 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,176
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #68
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-06-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Hate to tell you this, but medicare makes the same sort of decisions on what is covered or not covered, and to what extent. If the patient decides to go ahead with a uncovered or partially covered test, they may be charged the difference. It's not like medicare has a policy of "do whatever you want, incur any amount of charges, and we will send a check".
coverage might depend on where yo live

And in a single payer system, you don't have the right to elect to go forward with an uncovered or partially covered procedure. If the government lackey won't pay for it, you can't do it. That's why it is called single payer.

Now, I actually don't think the most people calling for "single payer" understand that. I think what most of them actually want is single provider, which is somewhat different. UK and about half of Europe are single provider, Canada (and Russia and China) are single payer. The best systems in Europe are the Bismarck universal private health systems (France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland).
02-06-2020 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,176
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #69
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(09-03-2019 11:10 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I just want a system that works primarily to the benefit of patients and providers. What system is that? If patients are happy and providers are happy, the system is probably working reasonably well and reasonably efficiently.

Then you want Bismarck.

Quote:I don't think true single-payer works in this country, as americans aren't the combination of high costs, unhealthy population, diverse population (geographically, culturally, and genetically) work against making it an affordable system. Most of the countries that seem to have more success have more homogenous populations than the USA and are far smaller with fewer isolated rural populations.

True single-payer exists in three or four counties--Canada (although they are backing away from it in a lot of areas), Russia, China, maybe Cuba and Venezuela. Most of Europe is single-provider, which is different. In single-payer, docs may be independent, but they can perform only those services that government agrees to pay for. That's why it is called single-payer. Single-provider means there is a large government health care provider (like NHS in UK) that most docs work for, but there is a small private pay-for-care group (like Baker Street in UK) that you can use if you don't want to wait in the queue. depending on the country, by law you may or may not be able to buy insurance to cover private care, and where you can purchase insurance, regulations may severely limit it.

Bismarck means everybody gets a basic policy, generally paid for by the state, either directly (France) or through a tax credit (Switzerland, Holland). You can use that basic care to access the "free" system or use "pay" private care and pay for it in cash or with supplemental private health insurance. The difference with Bismarck is that the "free" system is not intended to cover everything, and the "pay" side is an integral part of the system to cover queues and rationing.

Quote:All that said, I could get behind a partial-single payer system that:
1) covered everyone up through either 18 or 21, because I don't believe kids' health should depend on their parents' wealth (I just made up that sweet rhyme on the fly!);
2) provided backup coverage to everyone over age 60 (or so), because that removes a lot of the highest cost care from the private market (basically Medicare);
3) provided catastrophic coverage for everyone that fell between those ages, where the government would start paying costs instead of insurance after a certain coverage level (this would reduce costs for the private insurance market and guarantee expensive life-saving care).

Bismarck (at least in France) has the catastrophic coverage for everyone. Without having to insure that risk, private health insurance gets a lot cheaper.

Quote:The Bismarck plan sounds intriguing for the working-age population. And I'd be happy to see a public option, so long as the public-option wasn't completely undercutting the private market by forcing providers to accept below-market payment. If the private market can provide more efficient and effective coverage ... great! If the government plan can provide more efficient and effective coverage ... great! Should we really care who provides the coverage, so long as it is working? I want doctors making most of my healthcare decisions, not insurance company employees or government bureaucrats.

Again, you want Bismarck. And not just for working class, it works for everybody. 99+% of the French have the basic coverage (only exceptions are people transitioning into or out of the country). 90% have supplemental private insurance, mostly paid by employers. So they have a higher percentage of the population covered with private insurance tan we do, and they get te basic plan for free.
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2020 07:58 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-06-2020 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #70
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
I have a random idea and I'm hoping no one excoriates me if it is stupid because I haven't really thought it through. Plus, I don't have the business background to really think out all the implications.

What happens if we require private health insurance companies and private hospitals to transition to not-for-profit status with reasonably strict accounting standards (similar to a non-profit)? Thinking of this as a way to bring down costs since these industries make billions in profits that don't do anything to help with healthcare. CEO's and providers and such still make similar salaries.

Again, please don't excoriate me...
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 06:11 PM by mrbig.)
02-10-2020 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
greyowl72 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,190
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Rice
Location: Permanent Basement
Post: #71
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
Interesting idea, Big.

Universal health care, Medicare for all....will happen sooner or later. But it might be a generation before it’s fully implemented. The big obstacle, of course is funding it. And that will take a lot of creative thinking like you imagined. As well as, coming to the realization that Not having Universal Healthcare is more expensive than implementing it.
And, too... the present generation of 20-40 year olds will demand it.
02-10-2020 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 73
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #72
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-10-2020 06:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I have a random idea and I'm hoping no one excoriates me if it is stupid because I haven't really thought it through. Plus, I don't have the business background to really think out all the implications.

What happens if we require private health insurance companies and private hospitals to transition to not-for-profit status with reasonably strict accounting standards (similar to a non-profit)? Thinking of this as a way to bring down costs since these industries make billions in profits that don't do anything to help with healthcare. CEO's and providers and such still make similar salaries.

Again, please don't excoriate me...

That is in place in a quasi manner currently. The profits are capped at 20%. 80% of an insurance company's revenue (premiums) has to be spent on direct patient care. Otherwise, the insurance companies have to refund premiums back to the insured. Of course, all these TV ads that you should about living healthy and do this or do that as well as "educational" programs count as direct patient care. It is one of the ways to game the system. It is one of the reasons why I have advocated developing a "health wellness" program funded by the insurance companies in conjunction with Rice Athletics. They are basically buying national advertising for their programs but paying for it under the auspices of "wellness" so they (private insurance companies) get to keep more money while getting advertising and population wellness. We are talking a significant amount of money that can be gleaned from this.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 07:44 PM by ruowls.)
02-10-2020 07:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #73
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-10-2020 07:39 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 06:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I have a random idea and I'm hoping no one excoriates me if it is stupid because I haven't really thought it through. Plus, I don't have the business background to really think out all the implications.

What happens if we require private health insurance companies and private hospitals to transition to not-for-profit status with reasonably strict accounting standards (similar to a non-profit)? Thinking of this as a way to bring down costs since these industries make billions in profits that don't do anything to help with healthcare. CEO's and providers and such still make similar salaries.

Again, please don't excoriate me...

That is in place in a quasi manner currently. The profits are capped at 20%. 80% of an insurance company's revenue (premiums) has to be spent on direct patient care. Otherwise, the insurance companies have to refund premiums back to the insured. Of course, all these TV ads that you should about living healthy and do this or do that as well as "educational" programs count as direct patient care. It is one of the ways to game the system. It is one of the reasons why I have advocated developing a "health wellness" program funded by the insurance companies in conjunction with Rice Athletics. They are basically buying national advertising for their programs but paying for it under the auspices of "wellness" so they (private insurance companies) get to keep more money while getting advertising and population wellness. We are talking a significant amount of money that can be gleaned from this.

One difference is that big included 'and hospitals' in the capping program. My counter is, if you entertain 'and hospitals', why stop there?

Perhaps we should include 'and doctors should be capped at $x'.

And why not 'and make sure that all orthodontic practices are capped at $x of profit.'

As long as we are on the roll -- lets cap profits of 'medical imaging practices', and 'rehab centers.' Stop there? Naaahhh..... lets cap profits of gyms and nutritionists.

The problem is is that when you define to ending or strictly limiting economic incentives, you remove the issue of economic incentives from the drive downward.

My next door neighbor is a VP of company that builds and operates surgical centers. They are absolutely crushing hospitals in providing surgeries and those types of centers in a cost model --- to the point that their numbers show a 40-70% reduction in the cost of the services provided relative to a strict hospital. Savings that is enjoyed directly by them, and massively indirectly to us as consumers. Kind of a really awesome development that was made possible solely through returns.

I am sorry, saying we need to 'cap economic' return doesnt fly in my book. But then again, what you are talking is a partial application of socialism to an industry. That is a major difference between you and I guess, as every time a government tries to do such heavy handed intervention either by nationalization or price control (in this case 'profit control', which I guess is more palatable since it implicates the evil profit and the evils of capitalism in the swoop) it leads to an atrocious combination of inefficiencies and corruption.

Just look at the British coal system pre- and post Thatcher for a gret case study.

Here is a thought experiment for you: assume you are out of the 'government practice' and are now a private attorney. How would you feel with a government imposed 'fee limit' or government imposed 'profit limit' on your practice?

Hopefully this isnt an excoriation. It is a very raw critique of the idea.
02-10-2020 08:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 73
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #74
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-10-2020 08:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 07:39 PM)ruowls Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 06:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I have a random idea and I'm hoping no one excoriates me if it is stupid because I haven't really thought it through. Plus, I don't have the business background to really think out all the implications.

What happens if we require private health insurance companies and private hospitals to transition to not-for-profit status with reasonably strict accounting standards (similar to a non-profit)? Thinking of this as a way to bring down costs since these industries make billions in profits that don't do anything to help with healthcare. CEO's and providers and such still make similar salaries.

Again, please don't excoriate me...

That is in place in a quasi manner currently. The profits are capped at 20%. 80% of an insurance company's revenue (premiums) has to be spent on direct patient care. Otherwise, the insurance companies have to refund premiums back to the insured. Of course, all these TV ads that you should about living healthy and do this or do that as well as "educational" programs count as direct patient care. It is one of the ways to game the system. It is one of the reasons why I have advocated developing a "health wellness" program funded by the insurance companies in conjunction with Rice Athletics. They are basically buying national advertising for their programs but paying for it under the auspices of "wellness" so they (private insurance companies) get to keep more money while getting advertising and population wellness. We are talking a significant amount of money that can be gleaned from this.

One difference is that big included 'and hospitals' in the capping program. My counter is, if you entertain 'and hospitals', why stop there?

Perhaps we should include 'and doctors should be capped at $x'.

And why not 'and make sure that all orthodontic practices are capped at $x of profit.'

As long as we are on the roll -- lets cap profits of 'medical imaging practices', and 'rehab centers.' Stop there? Naaahhh..... lets cap profits of gyms and nutritionists.

The problem is is that when you define to ending or strictly limiting economic incentives, you remove the issue of economic incentives from the drive downward.

My next door neighbor is a VP of company that builds and operates surgical centers. They are absolutely crushing hospitals in providing surgeries and those types of centers in a cost model --- to the point that their numbers show a 40-70% reduction in the cost of the services provided relative to a strict hospital. Savings that is enjoyed directly by them, and massively indirectly to us as consumers. Kind of a really awesome development that was made possible solely through returns.

I am sorry, saying we need to 'cap economic' return doesnt fly in my book. But then again, what you are talking is a partial application of socialism to an industry. That is a major difference between you and I guess, as every time a government tries to do such heavy handed intervention either by nationalization or price control (in this case 'profit control', which I guess is more palatable since it implicates the evil profit and the evils of capitalism in the swoop) it leads to an atrocious combination of inefficiencies and corruption.

Just look at the British coal system pre- and post Thatcher for a gret case study.

Here is a thought experiment for you: assume you are out of the 'government practice' and are now a private attorney. How would you feel with a government imposed 'fee limit' or government imposed 'profit limit' on your practice?

Hopefully this isnt an excoriation. It is a very raw critique of the idea.

Hospitals are "capped" as well as providers and ancillary services in the current system.

As to free standing surgery centers, they are exploiting differences in regulatory requirements regarding health care facilities. Hospitals have to offer a greater array of services with many that are unprofitable but required due to regulatory standards. The surgery centers are able to exclude these revenue draining requirements so they are more profitable. Unfortunately, they don't have the resources to treat some of the severe unexpected consequences of surgery. What do they do? They transport the patient to the nearest hospital that has to maintain these higher standards and capabilities. It is another example of gaining the system for profit by shifting costs to someone else who is more regulated.
02-10-2020 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 73
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #75
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
Doctors don't have the luxury of an open market system. Being a good provider doesn't reward one to the extent that it does in other industries. It is pretty much a socialistic environment with a little wiggle room already.
02-10-2020 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #76
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-10-2020 09:35 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Doctors don't have the luxury of an open market system. Being a good provider doesn't reward one to the extent that it does in other industries. It is pretty much a socialistic environment with a little wiggle room already.

You are saying that, as an MD, you are 'capped' in your 'take-home'? (to be exact, that is doctor salary or fees collected, and excluding the 'ownership profits' from ownership interests in a practice, testing facility, imaging, or rehab. In short, I am excluding the practice ownership interest because many are structured in a structure not unlike law firms, in that the partners employ other professionals as employees and collect the 'net revenue from the employee - operating costs, etc).

My point is that if we follow the path that big proposes, then why not toss in the entire enchilada? His proposal is a strict cost setting, government defined regimen for such an enchilada, and if that is the case, why not profit-regulate every aspect of it, such as, things *not* covered by insurance like boob mills?

Big has the stomach for strong government intervention, actually strict economic regulation, of the area with his proposal, I am exploring how far does he have the stomach to cover the field?

As for the surgery center, I am a huge proponent of it. A perfect example of what a free market approach can do to a sector is wonderfully exemplified by boob mills. Those procedures are for the vast majority for the most part are not covered by insurance. They are typically paid for with elective dollars from the clients. Costs for boob jobs has, in the last 20 years, been reduced in constant dollars by 70%+ or more. And, they precisely outline the efficiencies of the 'day surgery center' concept as well as the issues posed by strict insurance regimens and mandates.

Another ongoing example are lasik procedures, which have plummeted in real dollars by again 70%+, and still curving downward. And again, a perfect example of scaling a surgery center for the very precise purpose. The lasik cost example is actually an outlier, since it is many times (most) covered by some insurance.

As a final thought, if your 'take-home' is indeed upward limited (again, not owership interest), my heart goes out to you.

If someone told me I can *only* make x per year, or regulated my fees by law to no more than y, I would be horribly pissed. I am actually aghast that some people seem to be proponents of that -- and my questions and comments to that extent are geared to finding an outward boundary to which they would say 'no way', and then from them try to backwards engineer why they feel some services are best served by strict government control of their specific economies.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2020 11:04 PM by tanqtonic.)
02-10-2020 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,176
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #77
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-10-2020 06:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I have a random idea and I'm hoping no one excoriates me if it is stupid because I haven't really thought it through. Plus, I don't have the business background to really think out all the implications.
What happens if we require private health insurance companies and private hospitals to transition to not-for-profit status with reasonably strict accounting standards (similar to a non-profit)? Thinking of this as a way to bring down costs since these industries make billions in profits that don't do anything to help with healthcare. CEO's and providers and such still make similar salaries.
Again, please don't excoriate me...

Then why would anyone invest funds to build a new hospital?
02-10-2020 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ruowls Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 73
I Root For:
Location:

Football Genius
Post: #78
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-10-2020 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(02-10-2020 09:35 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Doctors don't have the luxury of an open market system. Being a good provider doesn't reward one to the extent that it does in other industries. It is pretty much a socialistic environment with a little wiggle room already.

You are saying that, as an MD, you are 'capped' in your 'take-home'? (to be exact, that is doctor salary or fees collected, and excluding the 'ownership profits' from ownership interests in a practice, testing facility, imaging, or rehab. In short, I am excluding the practice ownership interest because many are structured in a structure not unlike law firms, in that the partners employ other professionals as employees and collect the 'net revenue from the employee - operating costs, etc).

My point is that if we follow the path that big proposes, then why not toss in the entire enchilada? His proposal is a strict cost setting, government defined regimen for such an enchilada, and if that is the case, why not profit-regulate every aspect of it, such as, things *not* covered by insurance like boob mills?

Big has the stomach for strong government intervention, actually strict economic regulation, of the area with his proposal, I am exploring how far does he have the stomach to cover the field?

As for the surgery center, I am a huge proponent of it. A perfect example of what a free market approach can do to a sector is wonderfully exemplified by boob mills. Those procedures are for the vast majority for the most part are not covered by insurance. They are typically paid for with elective dollars from the clients. Costs for boob jobs has, in the last 20 years, been reduced in constant dollars by 70%+ or more. And, they precisely outline the efficiencies of the 'day surgery center' concept as well as the issues posed by strict insurance regimens and mandates.

Another ongoing example are lasik procedures, which have plummeted in real dollars by again 70%+, and still curving downward. And again, a perfect example of scaling a surgery center for the very precise purpose. The lasik cost example is actually an outlier, since it is many times (most) covered by some insurance.

As a final thought, if your 'take-home' is indeed upward limited (again, not owership interest), my heart goes out to you.

If someone told me I can *only* make x per year, or regulated my fees by law to no more than y, I would be horribly pissed. I am actually aghast that some people seem to be proponents of that -- and my questions and comments to that extent are geared to finding an outward boundary to which they would say 'no way', and then from them try to backwards engineer why they feel some services are best served by strict government control of their specific economies.

You would be pissed then.
MDs can’t self refer to ancillary facilities they own or have a financial vested interest in without declaring it or giving the patient the opportunity to use a different competing resource. It gets into the antitrust laws. They also can’t be paid more than the “allowable charge” by a third party. They can have their own practice that they can charge whatever they want if they can find cash paying people willing to pay their fee for that service (your boob mills or lasik). But that is a niche market. MDs have gotten around it a bit by concierge docs (patient pays for the right to see a particular doctor). But again, it is dependent on cash paying patients outside of insurance.
It gets a little complex but it is mostly capped and regulated by the government.
02-11-2020 12:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,274
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #79
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
Ru,

what you are saying is that MDs are indirectly capped by a cost-setting outside intervention. But there is no 'Doctors can make only x' through the provisions of service.

On the ownership income, I have zero issue with MDs having ownership of those facilities; and I am a proponent of that information being disclosed to the patients.

I am in no way, shape, or form a proponent of '<insert job title> shall only make x', and aside from insurance that dictates a maximum cap return (I can see the social force for that, tbh), I am *not* in favor in any way, shape, or form a diktat limiting profit return on hospitals, or any other facet of the healthcare industry.

Those whom are proponents of those issues in actuality are defining themselves as 'socialist', to be honest. At the time anyone 'decides' that any provision of the market is a 'public good' and should be regulated to the extent that actual caps on returns are set, then there is literally (and I mean literally in the true sense) an act of government appropriation on the market good or service. Those on the left can squawk all they want -- but that act very well sits in the non-rhetorical purview of true socialism.

Thanks for the insights on the nuts and bolts, ru.
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2020 02:48 AM by tanqtonic.)
02-11-2020 02:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mrbig Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,035
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Rice
Location: New Orleans
Post: #80
RE: The Case for Medicare for All
(02-10-2020 11:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  My point is that if we follow the path that big proposes, then why not toss in the entire enchilada? His proposal is a strict cost setting, government defined regimen for such an enchilada, and if that is the case, why not profit-regulate every aspect of it, such as, things *not* covered by insurance like boob mills?

Big has the stomach for strong government intervention, actually strict economic regulation, of the area with his proposal, I am exploring how far does he have the stomach to cover the field?

I didn’t propose a path you big boob. I asked a question. I acknowledged that this is a topic where I know very little. Next time I won’t bother asking. Jeeze, what is your deal?
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2020 03:07 AM by mrbig.)
02-11-2020 03:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.