OUR COUNTDOWN TO FASCIST MEDICINE

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This raises a pretty good question: why should insurance companies be for-profit companies? If they exist to serve the health needs of Americans, why is the profit motive an important part of the equation?

It seems to me that you take as a given something which isn't - at all.

Cycloptichorn

The same logic, I believe, can be assigned to public utilities. Electric, gas, phone companies.

The profit is gained from all the premiums of the healthy subscribers that are not needed for paying for the sick subscribers, I thought. That is bad? By the way, that is the reason national health will not just be for those with no health care, but needs to include those with current health care. The only way a health care system can maintain itself is to have a large enough subscriber base that includes a lot of healthy people.

But, if you notice how bridge tolls, and road tolls go up, when there is no outlay commensurate with a bridge or road upkeep, do we really believe a national health care system will not become a big cash cow for the government?

Not being a breast fed baby myself, I admit I yearn to be suckled at the breast of big government at times. However, I know that breast will just lull me into compacency, so I would be reluctant to ever eating food that I need to chew.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

I love the big bad government nonsense when it the big bad insurance companies are the one sucking out a large percent of our health care budget into profits along with very big bad drug companies who have our "free market"paying double for the same drugs that everyone else in the world pay.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This raises a pretty good question: why should insurance companies be for-profit companies? If they exist to serve the health needs of Americans, why is the profit motive an important part of the equation?

It seems to me that you take as a given something which isn't - at all.

Cycloptichorn

The same logic, I believe, can be assigned to public utilities. Electric, gas, phone companies.

The profit is gained from all the premiums of the healthy subscribers that are not needed for paying for the sick subscribers, I thought. That is bad?

Yes! It's bad, because it provides a negative incentive for health insurance companies to pay for people's health care, or to modernize, or to streamline, or to do anything efficient. They don't make money by paying for YOUR health care, they make money by denying it! This is one of the reasons that dozens of millions of Americans cannot get health care at all and FAR more have shitty health care - they have pre-existing conditions which companies won't touch, b/c they know they will lose money on the folks. This basically leaves people screwed, because the popularity and wide-spread nature of insurance allows fees to go up, and up and up - hell, everyone has insurance, so if procedures start costing more and more, everyone will be able to afford it still, right? No.

Quote:

But, if you notice how bridge tolls, and road tolls go up, when there is no outlay commensurate with a bridge or road upkeep, do we really believe a national health care system will not become a big cash cow for the government?

Health care costs have been rising over 10% per year for the last decade or more, on average. The toll bridges and roads near me sure as hell haven't been, I don't know about where you live. At least we have some legislative control over toll bridges; we have ZERO control over the health insurance industry. You are not represented on this issue as it is.

Quote:

Not being a breast fed baby myself, I admit I yearn to be suckled at the breast of big government at times. However, I know that breast will just lull me into compacency, so I would be reluctant to ever eating food that I need to chew.

I believe the appropriate word for this is 'pap.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Insurance companies will make a profit or they will stop providing insurance protection. There is no incentive for them to provide health insurance for people if it is going to cost them money to do that.

And the person who is the least profitable to insure should pay more for health insurance just as the driver with numerous accidents and/or infractions will pay more for his auto insurance or the employer who reports numerous work comp incidents will pay more for his work comp premiums and the homeowner who lives on a flood plain or hurricane prone area will pay more to insure against loss than will people who live in areas where losses are less likely.

If you get regular checkups, go to the gym four days a week, eat kelp, tofu, and salads, why should you be penalized for the enormous portions of red meat, potato chips, and cheesecake that I might eat and for me sitting on the couch 18 hours a day? Why shouldn't you be able to buy catastrophic insurance that will take care of any unexpected big bills and otherwise benefit from the lifestyle you have adopted? Why should you have to pay for my huge medical bills due to the lifestyle I live and why should I be able to benefit from yours?

But health insurance should insure, and not go away once it is needed. It should be portable and it should be available to all who need it.

If the government should provide an assigned risk pool for those who can't otherwise get insurance, and provide insurance only for those who haven't been able to acquire private insurance, I would have less problem with that though I would want the states to do that, and not the federal government. Most states do have assigned risk pools now for liability insurance for people who otherwise can't easily get it. I do have a problem with the government in any way being in competition with private insurance companies, however.

But once healthcare is available to all Americans, those people who prefer not to pay anything at all for health insurance, that should be their right. That is what freedom looks like. But it should be them assuming the risk and and not other people.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Insurance companies will make a profit or they will stop providing insurance protection. There is no incentive for them to provide health insurance for people if it is going to cost them money to do that.

Why, do you think, could more than 3,000 insurance companies offer mandatory health insurances here in Germany, over decades, without being allowed to make profit? And 187 (they all bigger now) are still doing it?

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Why, do you think, could more than 3,000 insurance companies offer mandatory health insurances here in Germany, over decades, without being allowed to make profit? And 187 (they all bigger now) are still doing it?

Because they face stiff penalties from the govt if they dont.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

I dont' know. Perhaps Germans are happier to allow the goverment far more control over their lives than are freedom loving Americans? Americans also are used to and prefer a healthier economy than what Germans have apparently tolerated for many years now.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Insurance companies will make a profit or they will stop providing insurance protection. There is no incentive for them to provide health insurance for people if it is going to cost them money to do that.

Why, do you think, could more than 3,000 insurance companies offer mandatory health insurances here in Germany, over decades, without being allowed to make profit? And 187 (they all bigger now) are still doing it?

I was going to ask the same question...

I see that Fox wrote -

Quote:

I dont' know. Perhaps Germans are happier to allow the goverment far more control over their lives than are freedom loving Americans? Americans also are used to and prefer a healthier economy than what Germans have apparently tolerated for many years now.

This is inadequate. The point is that the companies run profits, something that you and others have claimed wouldn't happen if the companies are forced to accept everyone.

Not only that, you've slipped into a bad argument here, claiming that our system is 'freedom loving' and theirs is not. This is a false paradigm on your part, and an emotional argument, not a logical one.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I dont' know. Perhaps Germans are happier to allow the goverment far more control over their lives than are freedom loving Americans? Americans also are used to and prefer a healthier economy than what Germans have apparently tolerated for many years now.

Health insurance companies aren't directly involved in unhealthy or healthy economy.

Indirectly of course a lot since the money they get comes from the money someone earns.

Well, perhaps that what you wrote is really the reason why they don't make profit but still go on selling health insurances: we don't love freedom.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I made no such claim. I answered a leading question with a leading question. If Walter had wished to give the answer than he obviously knows rather than throw out a leading question, he was certainly free to do that.

Do you deny that the American economy has performed better than has the German economy? That we have enjoyed lower unemployment numbers since German reunification? That we have enjoyed more prosperity? At least until recently. Germany got smart and refused to jump on the unsupportable bailout and stimulus package bandwagon and their unemployment percentage I believe is currently stable and dropping while ours in steadily increasing.

But again, comparing what works in Germany with what would work in the USA is like comparing a transit system that works for Topkea KS and one that works for New York City or Los Angeles. Everything that works on a small scale is not appropriate on a very large scale. The USA has the world's third largest population. The last time I looked, Germany was 14th or 15th.

The federal government should not be doing this. Maybe most Germans think it is appropriate for their federal government to regulate and control their entire health industry, but most Americans do not want that. Let the states manage whatever their people want. Keep the feds out of it.

Also:

Quote:

Since the richest Germans do not have to participate in the public health-insurance system"that is, they can opt out and buy private health insurance instead"their money is not available to help subsidize the health care of the vast majority of Germans, Berghoefer observed.

The government"not the physicians"decides which medical procedures are to be reimbursed under the public health-insurance system, Kathrin Meyer zur Capellen, M.D., reported. She is a psychiatric trainee in a community hospital in Augsburg.

German physicians are not reimbursed all that well by the public health-insurance system, Peter Zwanzger, M.D., director of the psychiatry and psychotherapy clinic at the University of Muenster, opined. (Indeed, an article in the April 24 Healthcare Economist reported that the purchasing power of German physicians' wages is lower than that of American physicians. However, this lower purchasing power is due not just to the amount of money German physicians get from the public health-insurance system, but to the hefty amount of taxes that are withheld from their wages to help finance Germany's numerous social programs, including the public health-insurance one.)
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/43/17/4

3 Replies

And this:

Quote:

CBO deals new blow to health plan
July 25, 2009

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

Read more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html

Quote:

Emerging from several hours of meetings Thursday with House leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel told NPR's Steve Inskeep that "their intention is to go next week and she is working toward that goal."

Despite an earlier push by President Obama for Congress to complete its work on the legislation before the break, he and his chief of staff have acknowledged that a final product is more likely to be seen at the end of the year.

Still, setting the deadline for August was important, Emanuel said, because Congress "can use the summer months to basically work out and iron out differences."

Those differences include debates over thorny issues like taxing the wealthy to pay for expanding health coverage, whether to create a government plan that would compete for patients with private insurers, and what kind of role businesses should play, among other things.

"Having a deadline focuses the mind," he said. . . .

. . . ."The public wants health care reform that fundamentally doesn't put the insurance companies in control of the process, which is where they fundamentally are," he said. . . .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106946745

Quote:

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The health care reform legislation working its way through Congress has lost support over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat in favor of the reform effort while 53% are at least somewhat opposed.

Today’s 44% level of support is down from 46% two weeks ago, and 50% in late June. . . .

. . . .One reason for the decline in support may be the legislative emphasis on universal coverage rather than cost controls. Voters see cost, not universal coverage, as the biggest health care concern. Also, 78% believe that health care reform is likely to lead to middle class tax hikes. Figuring out how to pay for the trillion dollar-plus plan has presented a significant challenge for congressional Democrats working on the legislation.

Another factor that may be playing a role is underlying public skepticism about the legislative process. Americans, by a two-to-one margin, believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress can always make it worse. . . . .

. . . .One key item in the overall debate is a government health insurance company that would compete with private insurers. Thirty-five percent (35%) of voters favor a public health care option while 50% are opposed.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform

And in spite of all that, there are still people who are willing to turn over their lives, freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities to the great god of federal government and believe that everything their fearless leaders (or the leftwing bloggers) tell them is pure, noble, honest, and straight from the heart.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you deny that the American economy has performed better than has the German economy?

When exactly did the USA get from one day to the other a growth in population of about 20% with all the connected problems? Wink

I mean, we certainly should compare that.

Or how the USA was doing when they totally destroyed after a war. Would be interesting as well.

But our mandatory health insurance worked pretty well in both cases.
And in none of those events the insurance companies made any profit.
(I mean, they make profits. But give it back to their members: either by more service [e.g. six weeks cure after an operation was nearly normality until the 8o's as well as paid a lot for "health vacancies" (now only three weeks cure, and you just get $20/day for "health vacancies"] and/or the fees go down.)

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And in spite of all that, there are still people who are willing to turn over their lives, freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities to the great god of federal government

as opposed to having the INSURANCE COMPANIES between you and your doctor?

and believe that everything their fearless leaders (or the leftwing bloggers) tell them is pure, noble, honest, and straight from the heart.

as opposed to the rnc, "savage rush hannity" and the previous administration?

is it really so hard to hold final judgement until the final proposal is released? or is all of this just more "Politics Uber alles" ?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But again, comparing what works in Germany with what would work in the USA is like comparing a transit system that works for Topkea KS and one that works for New York City or Los Angeles. Everything that works on a small scale is not appropriate on a very large scale. The USA has the world's third largest population. The last time I looked, Germany was 14th or 15th.

We have large health insurers with more than 10 million insured persons, and 8still) others with just some thousands.
I don't think that such has to do with the population of a country.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I'm sure you are very proud of your system, Walter, and I am glad for you that you are so happy with it. But the problems with it that I posted earlier this afternoon are problems that we don't have and that I don't want. If I can appreciate that you want something different than I want, can you not appreciate the same?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Also:

Quote:
Since the richest Germans do not have to participate in the public health-insurance system"that is, they can opt out and buy private health insurance instead"their money is not available to help subsidize the health care of the vast majority of Germans, Berghoefer observed.

The government"not the physicians"decides which medical procedures are to be reimbursed under the public health-insurance system, Kathrin Meyer zur Capellen, M.D., reported. She is a psychiatric trainee in a community hospital in Augsburg.

German physicians are not reimbursed all that well by the public health-insurance system, Peter Zwanzger, M.D., director of the psychiatry and psychotherapy clinic at the University of Muenster, opined. (Indeed, an article in the April 24 Healthcare Economist reported that the purchasing power of German physicians' wages is lower than that of American physicians. However, this lower purchasing power is due not just to the amount of money German physicians get from the public health-insurance system, but to the hefty amount of taxes that are withheld from their wages to help finance Germany's numerous social programs, including the public health-insurance one.)
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/43/17/4

I do know the above mentioned Dr Zwanzger personally (actually met him a couple of days ago). He's not the what is claimed in the article, but one of the assistant deputy heads of psychiatry clinic run by Münster university (As an aside: the director is Prof. Dr. med. Volker Arolt, then there a chief deputy, a leading deputy ....)
All the named persons in that article referred to psychiatric medicine.
Which truely could be better financed, especially the physicians there.
But - when you look at psychiatric medicine in ... let's say, the USA and compare that with .... let's say germany - I don't think we are that bad at all.

And although there's no limitation on cover for chronic conditions, insurance companies (not the law) try to limit the average stay in hospitals.
Which is somehow more bad for psychiatric clinics since patients stay there really very long.

But as said: the doctors decide what the medical procedures are ordered.

Generally, despite what is said, any doctor decides what the patient get and not a law. It may be that you get geriatric medicine instead of expensive other, that you see the head physician only once per week when staying in hospital ...

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

And in spite of all that, there are still people who are willing to turn over their lives, freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities to the great god of federal government

as opposed to having the INSURANCE COMPANIES between you and your doctor?

The insurance company is not between me and my doctor. Currentlythe Federal government, tells my doctor and me what it will and will not insure. But it cannot tell my doctor and me the options that are open to us whether or not the government is willing to pay for them. And it is that freedom that I do not wish to give up.

and believe that everything their fearless leaders (or the leftwing bloggers) tell them is pure, noble, honest, and straight from the heart.

as opposed to the rnc, "savage rush hannity" and the previous administration?

The previous administration did not attempt to interfere with my healthcare though it did force a government healthcare program on me that I did not want (and still don't want). Sean Hannity nor any other media/entertainment figure has ever had any power over what kind of healthcare was available to me. I don't want to give up the power to do what is best for me.

is it really so hard to hold final judgement until the final proposal is released? or is all of this just more "Politics Uber alles" ?

The previous administration forced a bail out package on the people with almost no controls in place and we don't have a clue what happened to most of that money other than at least half of it was carried over for the current administration to spend. Most Americans opposed that package.

President Obama previously pledged that we would never be subjected to that kind of thing and all legislation would be fully posted on the internet so that the people could comment on it before he signed it. He has yet to keep that pledge on any large spending initiative.

The current administration forced a second bail out package on the people with almost no controls in place and we don't have a clue what happened to most of that money. Most Americans opposed that package. And the transparency in government spending Obama promised has not been apparent to anybody.

The current administration forced a stimulus package on the people that most did not want, has provided very little transparency on what is being done with that money, and though it was to start creating jobs and stop the rising rate of employment immediately. It had to be passed immediately and signed immediately to head off imminent economic collapse, even before the President or members of Congress had read it, much less the American people advised of what was in it. We are now told that they never expected any results to kick in before a year or two even as the economy continues to weaken and unemployment rise.

The curret administration attempted to force a Cap & Trade bill on the people that nobody had read before the vote and which promises to impose the largest tax increase in the history of the world. The ONLY reason we don't have that turkey around our necks right now is that Harry Reid, already in trouble in Nevada, was not willing to give up his Senate seat to pass it as it is.

And now you have the President stumping for a massive healthcare overhaul which he admits he has not read and has left up to Congress to accomplish. Lobbyist and staffers are writing it--does that give you a huge amount of confidence in the underlying motives? And Pelosi is gungho to bring it to a vote next week and again nobody will have read it.

Should that actually pass the thing this fall--and the Democrats have a fillibuster proof Congress to do it--the President and Congress will have more than a year, and possibly three years, to dismantle the current healthcare system so that we can never get it back.

And when it is passed, it will likely be delivered to Congress in the wee hours of the morning for a vote the same day, and the President will sign it immediately as 'we won't be able to afford to wait.'

No my friend, DTOM, I don't think we can wait until it is a done deal to analyze and comment on it. To do so hands them all the power and relinquishes what power we have left.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

The insurance company is not between me and my doctor.

oh? you must have some unusual insurance.

now, me.. i have blue shield. a ppo plan to be exact. it used to be pretty comprehensive. but in the last few years;

1) deductible went from $200/y to $500/y.

2) drug coverage went from a 3 month supply @ $5 per script, per month to now $20 per script, per month.

3) additionally in drug coverage, the insurance company has decided that it doesn't care what the doctor prescribes, we must accept what they call a "formulary" generic. in some cases, the formulary can have a variance with potential side effects that the real deal doesn't.

4) in the last 4 months alone, the insurance company has denied to me these physician ordered tests;

a) a ct scan of my noggin' to see why i was experiencing severe post nasal and breathing related issues. may not seem like much, but in conjunction with copd and chronic bronchitis, it's not like being able to breath is unimportant to me.

but, the insurance company got between me and my doctor and said, "we do not see any reason for this. DENIED!".

5) i had the same doctor for a decade. he was my primary from the time of my quad bypass at 41 years old. 2 years ago, his entire medical group gave up on the insurance companies, and went to a "pay now, get reimbursed by the insurance company model". i cannot afford to do it that way. most people cannot.

so, after going through 2 new doctors (who had no business hanging a shingle), i finally find a good doctor, who i can now also use as my cardiologist.

he did an initial workup. he ordered a couple of tests; one being the ever popular "stress test" or "treadmill test". as you know, the purpose of the test is to determine if you are moving blood properly, or if you are getting blockages.

THE INSURANCE COMPANY DENIED IT... "you had one with your cardiologist last year. you have to wait."

direct quote from the doctor; "what's their problem? if you need it, you need it".

oh, yeah... at the same time they changed the deductible and the drug coverage.. they RAISED THE PREMIUM FROM $1000/m to $1850/m.

you can call it whatever you want, but right now, you have the insurance company between you and your doctor.

maybe that works for you, but considering my health is ****, in part because it was either not offered in my benies or was too expensive when i was younger. i looked into it around 1990 when i finally bailed on corporate america. at the time, it would be around $375 - $450/m . forget cheap, that wasn't affordable even in 1990 dollars.

what about pre-existing? been turned down twice for any coverage since the bypass. the only reason i have any insurance at all is thanks to my wife's plan which covers a spouse. that goes back to 1993 when we were married.

you can do what you want. but, i'm holding my judgement of the reform bills untill i see the final product.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

No, the insurance company didn't deny it DTOM. The insurance company denied coverage for it. There is a difference. Your doctor has the authority to refer you anywhere for treatment for anything or to prescribe for you yourself so long as you understand that you'll have to pay for it. You have the right to go to whomever will see you and be treated for anything. If you think there will be any less rationing of health care under Obamacare than you have now, or less restrictions, you only have to listen to the President's own words. People like me who catch something really bad will probably not be treated at all. The difference is that under Obamacare, I will have far less opportunity to seek treatment outside the system because the system itself will be dismantled.

Perry Noonan's recent essay provides some provocative themes about this. The meat and potatoes phrase from the whole thing though was this:

Quote:

Quote:
I think the plan is being slowed and may well be stopped not by ideology, or even by philosophy in a strict sense, but by simple American common sense. I suspect voters, the past few weeks, have been giving themselves an internal Q-and-A that goes something like this:

Will whatever health care bill is produced by Congress increase the deficit? “Of course.” Will it mean tax increases? “Of course.” Will it mean new fees or fines? “Probably.” Can I afford it right now? “No, I’m already getting clobbered.” Will it make the marketplace freer and better? “Probably not.” Is our health care system in crisis? “Yeah, it has been for years.” Is it the most pressing crisis right now? “No, the economy is.” Will a health-care bill improve the economy? “I doubt it.”

. . . .(among three other considerations): The first has to do with the doctors throughout the country who give patients a break, who quietly underbill someone they know is in trouble, or don’t charge for their services. Also the emergency rooms that provide excellent service for the uninsured in medical crisis. People don’t talk about this much because they’re afraid if they do they’ll lose it, that some government genius will come along and make it illegal for a doctor not to charge or a hospital to fudge around, with mercy, in its billing. People are afraid of losing the parts of the system that sometimes work"the unquantifiable parts, the human parts. . . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306533556532364.html

Nobody is suggesting that we don't need to address some of the issues you, Peggy, others, and I have raised. We do. But there are better ways of doing it than turning the whole thing over to a federal government that has a really bad track record for running much of anything competently.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, the insurance company didn't deny it DTOM. The insurance company denied coverage for it.

excuse me??

1 Reply

OUR COUNTDOWN TO FASCIST MEDICINE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know