Infrastructure Reforms

[choff]

I wouldn't know about death panels in Canada, except that there's always a push to privatize the public system by people on the right, but no major party will touch it, political kiss of death. So right wing governments like to slowly defund the system then claim it doesn't work we need to privatize so their business friends can get in.

It's called public private partnerships, and it allows governments to avoid accountability and responsibility, while hiding fraud and corruption. I've heard complaints of death panels in Britian, but remember this is a public system being screwed up by the introduction of private companies, and it's the private ones creating the death panels.

Actually the private companies getting into government services are accused of being part of Agenda 21 depopulation.

[palladin9479]

No purely private health care system can possibly work, ever. Anyone proposing such a system is being incredibly economic with the truth. Free market rules would not allow for it. Breaks down into two parts.

First being the laws of free market, the cost of supply will be a function of demand and cost of production. As the demand for each person's good health and life is infinite (how much would you pay to stay alive / not die) then the cost of supply is infinite + cost of production. It's not a coincidence that medical costs are going up at twice the rate of inflation, its the suppliers attempting to maximize profit by adjusting for the income stream. As additional costs are passed on to the consumer, the cost of supply then becomes Infinite + Production + Additional costs.

Now for the issues with the supply side. Private full providers can not work as their adding nothing of value to the system. In order for a private provider to make a profit they need to charge the consumer the cost of care plus the cost of their own management plus profit margin. This ultimately boils down to them charging me $1000 to provide $500 in care. The market would be better off having the consumer pay the $500 to the health care provider directly rather then paying $1000 to the middleman who then pays the provider $500 then puts the extra $500 into their pockets.

These two unfortunate realities of a free market contrive to ensure that no for-profit all encompassing insurance system works. It always results in higher costs to the consumer then a public system would. Further what it really accomplishes is to move this cost from one social category to another. Health care is in the same category as domestic security (police/fire) and national security (military). It's value to the individual is infinite and thus can not be provided for by a free market.

Now, seeing as I happen to live in a country with something that resembles a nationalized health care system, I have first hand experience with how this works. As I'm not a part of that system I do not get the government subsidy and have to pay full costs. The really funny part is that as my job is rather good, I have full employer provided insurance yet I never use it. The cost of me using it is higher then the costs of be just paying full price on the domestic market. Awhile back I injured my wrist and didn't do anything about it for a week, eventually it hurt bad enough that I went to an after-hours clinic / hospital (more expensive). Turns out I had micro-fractures in the bones and it needed to have a cast. The cost for the x-rays, casting, doctor and all the work was around $120~130 USD (was in KRW). That is full rate with no government assistance.

You guys should really do some research into South Korea's national health system. They found an ingenious way to blend free market with a national health system, and it didn't end up screwing over everyone to make a handful of people rich. The problem with US healthcare is that tiny issue with it's base cost being infinite, or all your money whichever is less. This creates an incentive for health care providers to increase their rates in line with inflation, and as the market hasn't found a ceiling the increase we be at approximately twice the rate of inflation.

[Skipjack]

Ahh, yes the famous "death panels" myth...
My insurance here in the US does not cover all procedures either and others have a very hefty co pay. I am sure that these things are also determined by "death panels" at these companies, eh?
And what about the denial of coverage that is very common with private insurance. Is that also determined by "death panels"?

[GIThruster]

There are some private insurance companies who do indeed decide in both policy, and often times on a case by case basis, whether or not they are going to cover any particular cost. In those states that allow a case by case approach, a law suit is often the only way to recover expenses. Many times, insurance companies are regulated by state codes as to what they can and can't get away with and are forced into certain kinds of policy decisons. Only rarely and in the best cases do insurance companies cover anything the doctor orders. Aetna was a good example when I had them 15 years ago. Basically they covered anything the doctor said was necessary without complaint. However, as time goes on and doctors fill their offices with increasingly expensive equipment they can then charge insurance companies for, doctors have increasing pressure to overcharge and add on tests that may not be necessary.

Hence what we have is a creative tension where the patient and doctor are on one side and the insurer on the other, and the only way to get to a fair result is to work through that tension. This is much the same as the tension between management and labor. When either side is over-empowered by law, regulation or bureaucracy, that side benefits unfairly and the imbalance created causes severe troubles. We try to regulate from government, but this seldom helps. Certainly, creating a panel of disinterested bureaucrats doesn't create fairness. This is just another lame-ass, big government socialist response to a problem that cannot work and we ought to know with all the decades of experience that such things DO NOT WORK.

But yeah, given the stated function of the governmental bureaucracy, the term "death panel" is quite fitting. They are inevitably going to make life and death decisions instead of the doctor. It is already happening. Why do you think the AMA rescheduled mammograms and pap smears? Many women will no longer receive these preventatives on a timely schedule because government death panel bureaucracies have decided they can save money by testing women less often.

This is the same situation that has happened in the UK and Canada. Anywhere there is socialized health care, someone other than the doctor makes these medical decisions.

[palladin9479]

Bullvine Scatology.

Prior to the ACA being passed an insurance company could terminate coverage for multiple reasons. Chief amongst them as "Preexisting Conditions", also was used as "Undisclosed Medical History" or "Fraudulently Reports". That last by the way applies to any form that is incorrectly filled out, if you didn't put your middle initial on a form somewhere then they can terminate you under that reason. Undisclosed history can mean any condition that the insurance company finds should of been reported that wasn't. If you got a cold in the 5th grade and didn't report it when you signed on to your new provider, then they can terminate you for that. And then the infamous "preexisting conditions" which is a catch all category that can mean pretty much anything. That headache you got in highschool, that must of indicated you were going to get cancer so it's now a pre-existing condition. Don't laugh the insurance companies have done that.

It boils down to maximizing profit from revenue sources. In a free market companies are under no requirement to be ethical or moral about their choices. If it's legally permissible to do something then they will do it, and if it's not legally permissible but their able to hide it, then they will do it anyway. This isn't just the insurance companies, it's ALL FREE MARKET.

Above I listed how in order for the insurance companies to work they must provide $500 for services for every $1000 they take in, this is of course a gross estimation as the exact ratio differs. In any case the ratio is always paying less for service then income acquired. The moment a revenue source, *cough* I mean a subscriber requires more in service then they can pay in fee's they become a liability. One of the rules of free market is that an efficient system removes or reduces liabilities. Thus the moment that revenue source becomes a liability they need to be removed or reduced.

This happens in the form of automated flags on all accounts who have had a doctor report that remotely suggests an expensive long term medical problem or procedure. Their are people who are paid to do exhaustive search's through a revenue sources medical history looking for ways to remove them as liabilities, everything is checked. All past forms are checked to see if there is something filled out wrong, all past histories are checked to see if there is any plausible chance the expensive procedure / condition could be attributed to something that existed prior to the revenue sources subscription. Anything and everything is looked over to find a way to justify booting them, then it's recorded in their file at the insurance company. If that person suddenly has an expensive condition / operation the company can immediately pull out that info and use it to refuse payment. Perfect unregulated free market in action. Maximize profit through efficient extraction of revenue from sources while minimizing liabilities.

Don't even attempt to argue this, I have inside information regarding exactly how this is all done. A benefit from my mothers side of the family being heavily involved in the medical industry. If even a quarter of the things that go on were reported to the public, well it would guarantee the election of anyone going anti-HIC.

I love the free market, it's the best way to efficiently distribute goods and services. I believe it solves 99% of the worlds economic problems. There are some things though that belong in the public sector, nobody can argue for privatized military or police forces. Health falls right into that group, chiefly from the inability of a true cost ceiling to be determined. As your next breath tends to be a higher priority then pretty much anything else, health costs will rise until they consume all disposable income. Doing so they will lock out all the other consumer markets, remember there is a finite amount of disposable income for consumers to distribute across the free market.

[GIThruster]

If you got a cold in the 5th grade and didn't report it when you signed on to your new provider, then they can terminate you for that.

You must think you can write just anything and people will believe you. Most people learn not to lie like this by the time they're 7 or 8 years old. What happened to you?

Perfect unregulated free market in action.

Depending upon the state, the insurance industry is usually the most heavily regulated industry. All it takes is a phone call questioning the state codes to call all these things into question. Unfortunately, one might have to sue to stop an insurance company from shirking off their responsibilities, but this is surely NOT the consequence of a lack of regulation.

Don't even attempt to argue this, I have inside information regarding exactly how this is all done.

My wife of ten years is an insurance adjuster. I'll take her word over yours. Though many of your points have merit, having expressed them all through hyperbole you discredit yourself. There are certainly instances where insurance companies do the things you're talking about, just as there are surely used car salesmen who are crooks. That does not make all used car salesmen crooks.

In any case, good state insurance code can remove much of this trouble and often does. No code or regulation however, can stop bad people from doing bad things. Pretending all insurers are bad is about as bright as pretending all the insured are good. Fraud goes both ways and the solution is certainly not socialism.

[Skipjack]

But yeah, given the stated function of the governmental bureaucracy, the term "death panel" is quite fitting. They are inevitably going to make life and death decisions instead of the doctor.

I would rather have these decisions made by a neutral bureaucrat than a greedy insurance agency employee.
At least the beaurocrat will give the well being of the patient SOME consideration. In Austria the treatment is determined by the state of the art and then the doctors have some extra say on things depending on the situation. IMHO our insurance company actually sometimes goes too far in what they pay for, rather than the other way round. In Austria the government insurance definitely covers more treatments fully and we have less (if any) copay on treatments than I have seen here with my health insurance plan in the US. Things are actually much more flexible here. E.g. I can decide to pay certain things out of my own pocket and then dont need a prescription for that. I buy my Thrombo Ass that way. The doctor prescribed the more expensive Plavix instead of the Ass (which costs just as much as the prescription fee if I pay it out of my own pocket). In the US, I cant do that.

[GIThruster]

In the US, I cant do that.

Yes, you can. My mother was prescribed a form of guaifenesin that was prescription but she was able to replace it with a non-perscription form. Even though the non-perscription form was cheaper, it cost her the same because she no longer got a reimbursement for that drug. This is an example of how the insurance codes need to be updated regularly. Patients are encouraged to use generics because they're cheaper but not non-prescriptions. Makes no sense. If a non-prescription drug can be used in place of prescription, it should be reimbursed just the same. Everyone then saves money.

But you miss the main point. The persons who ought to be making health care decisions are the patient and the doctor. Not some bureaucrat. If our country had enough money to provide everyone with this kind of health care, i would be supportive of socialized medicine. the problem comes that we are NOT hat kind of wealthy, so the system being enabled will certainly be unfair and seriously screwed up. Again, you can't spend money you haven't got.

[choff]

Actually, there are people out there who do want to privatize the military and national security, same goes for the police and judiciary. I'm of the opinion that there are some things best done by the private sector and others that must be public.

[choff]

Forgot to mention Child and Family Services, with quotas on children taken into care with for profit adoption.

[palladin9479]

You must think you can write just anything and people will believe you. Most people learn not to lie like this by the time they're 7 or 8 years old. What happened to you?

I am 100% correct in this. That cold is not in your medical history and if the insurance company has some way to prove you had it, and didn't report it, then your service may be terminated. It was unreported medical history. I've seen people terminated for medical history from high school that wasn't on their medical records. They won't do it immediately as your still paying subscription fee's, they'll terminate the moment you get into an expensive situation.

Read the fine print, prior to "Obamacare" the insurance companies had many loop holes pre-programmed so they can dump non-profitable subscribers. Obamacare made many of these illegal, through fraud is still a reason and the exact definition of "fraud" is rather vague. I used an extreme example to show (yet perfectly valid) to showcase how easily an insurance company could get out of paying for your care. I did so as to invalidate your reply that insurance is for emergency use and that them paying for less service then they charge you in fee's is perfectly fine.

I was successful in invalidating your reply and shutting down most of you counter arguments before you could deploy them.

If your wife is really doing what you said, and your not lying behind an anonymous internet account to "win" an argument, then you should know that the insurance companies have people dedicated to pouring through histories of subscribers looking for a reason to terminate them. That practice is unethical, their taking service fee's from people and then looking for ways to not uphold their end of the agreement. If you walked into a store and bought a TV, then after check out and after you paid for it, the manager comes up and takes the TV back citing an arcane store rule that said people with the last name G couldn't buy it and that their sorry but they were only going to refund you 50% of the cost. That is EXACTLY what insurance providers were doing, taking people's money and when it comes time to pay their ducking the costs. If you can lawyer up you might be able to force them to pay, but that lawyer has costs and you run the risk of losing and having to pay the medical costs along with the lawyer costs. Also chances are your sick and it's the insurance provider who pays short / long term workers comp and as their dropped you, neither your work nor your insurance is paying and your not getting a paycheck.

[palladin9479]

Is this what you guys think of when you think of a "successful USA"?

[Diogenes]

Ahh, yes the famous "death panels" myth...
My insurance here in the US does not cover all procedures either and others have a very hefty co pay. I am sure that these things are also determined by "death panels" at these companies, eh?
And what about the denial of coverage that is very common with private insurance. Is that also determined by "death panels"?

What most people don't understand is that Perversely, it is Insurance which has driven the health care costs to insane levels.

What is wrong with our system cannot be fixed by Government. In fact, government caused the problem in the first place by implementing wage and price controls, which caused Employees to start offering Health Insurance as a benefit of employment.

The Medical establishment has been possessed of the same sort of Demon that is wrecking the Nation fiscally; The Divorce of the Payers from the decision making process.

Neither Congress, nor the Medical establishment sees any reason to control costs because from their perspective, it appears they have been handed a blank check. (Somebody else is paying the bill, so why worry about cost?)

[GIThruster]

What most people don't understand is that Perversely, it is Insurance which has driven the health care costs to insane levels.

Well, insurance is a cause of high costs, but not the cause. There is a standing army of health care workers all of whom need to be paid whether they're running a multi-million dollar scanning machine or doing brain surgery. The equipment used, the facilities, their maintenance, these all cost huge sums of money. There is no way to make modern health care cheap. The best we can do is make everyone so wealthy they can afford it. Remember, it is 1/6 of our economy. Even public education does not get so large a slice of the pie.

[GIThruster]

I was successful in invalidating your reply and shutting down most of you counter arguments before you could deploy them.

Well if you're the only one voting you should win that vote.