UJRefugees.net

Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:21 am

AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:43 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:12 am
Citation needed. Government is synonymous with wasteful spending, to act like the UK and Germany are somehow the exception is a very bold claim, I look forward to seeing the numbers.

Also, you seem to be confusing price gouging for waste. Big difference. But feel free to show me some numbers of actual waste by the non-government funded aspects of US healthcare so we can compare. Afterwards we should then look at the waste for the unregulated aspects for an even better comparison. But you are fairly bright and probably know exactly where such a side by side comparison will lead.

I worked with health insurance for many years. In a nutshell this is how it works: hospital wants a minimum amount of money for X procedure. Insurance company get a contracted rate, discounting the base cost said procedure (usually by a percentage). Hospital increases the base price for x procedure so that after the contract percentage is applied, they get at least the minimal amount they originally wanted (often/ideally more). Anyone with shitty insurance, or no insurance, pays the inflated price.

If we remove insurance from the equation and reintroduce competition --> healthcare cost will fall while actual services would improve. Guaranteed.

Citation for what? The fact that the US and German healthcare systems cover everyone with better outcomes for half the cost per capita? Are we somehow achieving that while also wasting way more than some comparison you won't specify?

Price gouging is a form of waste, one largely eliminated with single payer and higher in private versus public spending for the US, along with all other forms of waste-
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.137 ... 5587/full/

As always you don't know what you are talking about. And how on earth do you imagine any healthcare system could work without insurance? Most people simply could not afford the big bills, it does not work without risk pools.

Hehe, more insults. Classic...

Price gouging != waste. But, for some weird reason it is often presented as one and the same. (I guess its easier to skew the data that way, thus easier to manipulate the narrative. But whatever...).

A couple quick examples:
-Its estimated (by the National Academy of Medicine) that unnecessary and needless care cost $210 billion a year.
-Vimovo. If you don't know a big pharma co discovered two non-patented drugs are often used together so they combined them 'for the consumer' and raised the price from ~$40 for a months supply to over $3000, all under the guise of convenience.

These are labeled "waste" but its not actually wasteful. Its price gouging.

The only true way to eliminate price gouging (and waste in general) is to make these entities compete for peoples money.

Overpaying is waste, that's just what the words mean. There's really no point us arguing your error there, get yourself a dictionary. That is why the link I gave you analysing waste in medical spending, showing it's lower across the board in the public sector, includes price failures in the wasted spending.

Every developed nation outside the US has already found how to largely eliminate price gouging, all through regulation and negotiation, not competition. Your idea of ending all insurance is just stupid, since most people need insurance to have any chance of coping with a big medical bill. And you can't shop around while having a heart attack, or pretty much any medical emergency, you get shipped off, receive the services the doctors determine you need and then get presented with the bill in the recovery room. If you want to buy some new boobs then by all means shop around, but the basic essential side of the system often doesn't work that way. If you need any of the latest drugs or devices they're typically protected by patents, aka government enforced monopolies, and little old you does not have the bargaining power to negotiate the price. These are not things the free market can address, nor is universal coverage.

Catastrophic insurance is all anybody would need. You want that new knee start saving. NOW.

Charliesheen wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 2:42 pm Catastrophic insurance is all anybody would need. You want that new knee start saving. NOW.

What a gem you are

Charliesheen wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 2:42 pm Catastrophic insurance is all anybody would need. You want that new knee start saving. NOW.

Fact is they won't be able to give everybody everything they want. Some things take precedence. I wouldn't pay a penny for viagra, tranny operations or hormones, etc. etc.

AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 7:26 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 3:21 am

AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:43 am

Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 1:12 am
Citation needed. Government is synonymous with wasteful spending, to act like the UK and Germany are somehow the exception is a very bold claim, I look forward to seeing the numbers.

Also, you seem to be confusing price gouging for waste. Big difference. But feel free to show me some numbers of actual waste by the non-government funded aspects of US healthcare so we can compare. Afterwards we should then look at the waste for the unregulated aspects for an even better comparison. But you are fairly bright and probably know exactly where such a side by side comparison will lead.

I worked with health insurance for many years. In a nutshell this is how it works: hospital wants a minimum amount of money for X procedure. Insurance company get a contracted rate, discounting the base cost said procedure (usually by a percentage). Hospital increases the base price for x procedure so that after the contract percentage is applied, they get at least the minimal amount they originally wanted (often/ideally more). Anyone with shitty insurance, or no insurance, pays the inflated price.

If we remove insurance from the equation and reintroduce competition --> healthcare cost will fall while actual services would improve. Guaranteed.

Citation for what? The fact that the US and German healthcare systems cover everyone with better outcomes for half the cost per capita? Are we somehow achieving that while also wasting way more than some comparison you won't specify?

Price gouging is a form of waste, one largely eliminated with single payer and higher in private versus public spending for the US, along with all other forms of waste-
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.137 ... 5587/full/

As always you don't know what you are talking about. And how on earth do you imagine any healthcare system could work without insurance? Most people simply could not afford the big bills, it does not work without risk pools.

Hehe, more insults. Classic...

Price gouging != waste. But, for some weird reason it is often presented as one and the same. (I guess its easier to skew the data that way, thus easier to manipulate the narrative. But whatever...).

A couple quick examples:
-Its estimated (by the National Academy of Medicine) that unnecessary and needless care cost $210 billion a year.
-Vimovo. If you don't know a big pharma co discovered two non-patented drugs are often used together so they combined them 'for the consumer' and raised the price from ~$40 for a months supply to over $3000, all under the guise of convenience.

These are labeled "waste" but its not actually wasteful. Its price gouging.

The only true way to eliminate price gouging (and waste in general) is to make these entities compete for peoples money.

Overpaying is waste, that's just what the words mean. There's really no point us arguing your error there, get yourself a dictionary. That is why the link I gave you analysing waste in medical spending, showing it's lower across the board in the public sector, includes price failures in the wasted spending.

Every developed nation outside the US has already found how to largely eliminate price gouging, all through regulation and negotiation, not competition. Your idea of ending all insurance is just stupid, since most people need insurance to have any chance of coping with a big medical bill. And you can't shop around while having a heart attack, or pretty much any medical emergency, you get shipped off, receive the services the doctors determine you need and then get presented with the bill in the recovery room. If you want to buy some new boobs then by all means shop around, but the basic essential side of the system often doesn't work that way. If you need any of the latest drugs or devices they're typically protected by patents, aka government enforced monopolies, and little old you does not have the bargaining power to negotiate the price. These are not things the free market can address, nor is universal coverage.

Had you said 'needless care is waste' then, technically by definition that would be true... "Technically". Since doing something for no purpose is one definition of the word waste (though Dr.s are quick to insist additional test are needed, blah-blah-blah). But overpaying (including having unnecessary tests) is just getting ripped off. Period.

Perhaps profiteering would be a better word than price gouging; and while I know you love semantics -> the end result is the same.

Emergency care is a sticky affair. But, by the same token, if there was competition in the marketplace you would see even the price of emergency care come down drastically as well. A yearly check up for someone without insurance is a couple hundred dollars on average. If there was competition these check-ups would be closer to $20 in most cases. More people would know their health status and, ideally, less people would have sudden needs for emergency care. Of course that is more in line for things like heart attacks and not accidents; but the principle remains.

To put this in perspective lets look at the organ called the eye. LASIK, unregulated and uninsurable has seen the price for its procedure drop from ~$8,000 an eye to ~$2,000. The recovery time has gone from a week to a day or two. The technology is getting better, yet prices keep going down. All because of competition and lack of government involvement.

Be it a government or a business; as both get bigger and bigger they become increasingly wasteful and care less and less for those that it affects.
The solution to these kinds of problems is to shrink the entities in question and encourage competition. Not the opposite.

Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 4:50 pm Had you said 'needless care is waste' then, technically by definition that would be true... "Technically". Since doing something for no purpose is one definition of the word waste (though Dr.s are quick to insist additional test are needed, blah-blah-blah). But overpaying (including having unnecessary tests) is just getting ripped off. Period.

Perhaps profiteering would be a better word than price gouging; and while I know you love semantics -> the end result is the same.

Emergency care is a sticky affair. But, by the same token, if there was competition in the marketplace you would see even the price of emergency care come down drastically as well. A yearly check up for someone without insurance is a couple hundred dollars on average. If there was competition these check-ups would be closer to $20 in most cases. More people would know their health status and, ideally, less people would have sudden needs for emergency care. Of course that is more in line for things like heart attacks and not accidents; but the principle remains.

To put this in perspective lets look at the organ called the eye. LASIK, unregulated and uninsurable has seen the price for its procedure drop from ~$8,000 an eye to ~$2,000. The recovery time has gone from a week to a day or two. The technology is getting better, yet prices keep going down. All because of competition and lack of government involvement.

Be it a government or a business; as both get bigger and bigger they become increasingly wasteful and care less and less for those that it affects.
The solution to these kinds of problems is to shrink the entities in question and encourage competition. Not the opposite.

I'm not going to bother continuing to argue what words mean, just look at a dictionary. Check the link I gave you which shows waste in medical spending. Try to think past your starting delusions.

You seem to have dropped the daft idea that insurance is unnecessary, did you grasp why it is? Since you cannot shop around for a real emergency price competition is just not a factor. Same thing with patented medicines and devices. The free market simply does not apply to everything. When you need healthcare you really need it, and you can pay whatever bill you get presented with later or declare bankruptcy. Purely elective procedures that are relatively cheap are a different proposition, though the price reduction and recovery time improvements in LASIK are due more to improving technology than competition.

It is a simple fact that every other country demonstrates the basic error in your proposition that free market healthcare is the way to go. The US has given that the old college try while every other nation has gone gummint heavy and produced cheaper, more effective and more efficient healthcare systems.

AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 5:25 pm

Cassandros wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 4:50 pm Had you said 'needless care is waste' then, technically by definition that would be true... "Technically". Since doing something for no purpose is one definition of the word waste (though Dr.s are quick to insist additional test are needed, blah-blah-blah). But overpaying (including having unnecessary tests) is just getting ripped off. Period.

Perhaps profiteering would be a better word than price gouging; and while I know you love semantics -> the end result is the same.

Emergency care is a sticky affair. But, by the same token, if there was competition in the marketplace you would see even the price of emergency care come down drastically as well. A yearly check up for someone without insurance is a couple hundred dollars on average. If there was competition these check-ups would be closer to $20 in most cases. More people would know their health status and, ideally, less people would have sudden needs for emergency care. Of course that is more in line for things like heart attacks and not accidents; but the principle remains.

To put this in perspective lets look at the organ called the eye. LASIK, unregulated and uninsurable has seen the price for its procedure drop from ~$8,000 an eye to ~$2,000. The recovery time has gone from a week to a day or two. The technology is getting better, yet prices keep going down. All because of competition and lack of government involvement.

Be it a government or a business; as both get bigger and bigger they become increasingly wasteful and care less and less for those that it affects.
The solution to these kinds of problems is to shrink the entities in question and encourage competition. Not the opposite.

I'm not going to bother continuing to argue what words mean, just look at a dictionary. Check the link I gave you which shows waste in medical spending. Try to think past your starting delusions.

You seem to have dropped the daft idea that insurance is unnecessary, did you grasp why it is? Since you cannot shop around for a real emergency price competition is just not a factor. Same thing with patented medicines and devices. The free market simply does not apply to everything. When you need healthcare you really need it, and you can pay whatever bill you get presented with later or declare bankruptcy. Purely elective procedures that are relatively cheap are a different proposition, though the price reduction and recovery time improvements in LASIK are due more to improving technology than competition.

It is a simple fact that every other country demonstrates the basic error in your proposition that free market healthcare is the way to go. The US has given that the old college try while every other nation has gone gummint heavy and produced cheaper, more effective and more efficient healthcare systems.

Changing a price from $40 to $3000 is not waste. Its profiteering.

As said, unnecessary testing can be 'technically by definition' called waste. But, again, every doctor will argue that no test is meaningless, and labeling tests as waste seems to be disingenuous. I think a more honest example of waste is when a nursing home tosses medication because one of its residents dies, instead of saving it and using it for another patient who has the same script. Waste is money thrown away.

But, these are semantics. Also, competition drives new technologies better than the alternative.

I have not dropped the idea that insurance is unnecessary. I am just honest that in cases of emergency care its a tricky situation (and I am flexible to hear an argument for emergency medical insurance) If cost stayed where they are and insurance was gone- only the very wealthy could afford a heart attack. But, I stand by the idea that the overall cost of healthcare would plummet if insurance is removed from the equation and the industry had to compete. Competition in medical care for non-emergencies would also impact the cost of emergency services in a positive manner.

You claim that government run healthcare is cheaper and better, but I see a lot online about excessive wait times, doctor shortages, and overcrowding. I read stories where people will use the system for what amounts to just needing two Tylenol and a nap. Over the last 60 years the cost of your healthcare has risen about 10 fold- this means money is being drawn away from other sectors that likely should not be neglected. And as your population ages that cost diversion to healthcare over other sectors will only increase and a quickening pace.

So maybe the gummint isn't doing such a spot on job as you like to profess.

Nope, don't have the patience to tell you the same thing again. You don't seem to be capable of grasping what I say.

AnalHamster wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 8:57 pm Nope, don't have the patience to tell you the same thing again. You don't seem to be capable of grasping what I say.

Kinda figured you would say something to this effect.

But, only one veiled insult to close with...

We are making progress.

Biker wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 5:24 pm

That's an odd thing for a moderate democrat to post

Stapes wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 3:07 pm

Careful, Don! You might touch the black guy!

She would spit in his face in my opinion

Here is a random picture of Obama for no reason

Biker wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:24 pm

Chicago?

Biker wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:30 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:24 pm

Jersey representin'

Stapes wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:49 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 7:30 pm

CaptQuint wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 11:38 pm

That's a good one.

.