Ok. GOP what is your solution to the healthcare crisis in the US? Do nothing?

I have made 3 or 4 posts now referencing when you compared list prices to what Medicare pays and implied that therefore Medicare pays that much less than private. You just got done claiming that you didnt say this, and I showed you in black and white where you said PRECISELY what I said you did.You have continued to deny this, and now you want to switch it to you said it later? Thats not intellectual dishonesty on my part, that is consistency and not allowing you to explain things away by simply going off on a tangent.

Yes that is what you went on. You "went on" to say that ANY company that makes 433% margin is doing fabulous. The when confronted, you change it to well if they have a patent........ Companies with a patent do fit into the category of "ANY" company right? Fact is, necessary margins vary widely from industry to industry and for good reason, and you clearly dont have the slightest inkling as to how to assess this. You are too caught up in calling everything excessive profiteering, when in fact you have barely a cursory understanding of which you speak....at best. I believe I said this to you earlier and will repeat it again....you are SHORT on knowledge, and LONG on opinions.

 

I have made 3 or 4 posts now proving that your claim that I derived the 38% figure from those sources is bogus, by referencing my initial post on the subject, which proves beyond dispute that the 38% figure was derived from a single source. And that it was *not* from a "listing various list prices for medical procedures and the price that medicare paid, implying this showed a 38% reduction of what private pays" as you falsely claimed.

Here again, for anyone who wants to check it, is my initial post on the subject: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...e-crisis-us-do-nothing-23.html#post1062598435

And here is my statement on where I got the 38% figure, from that post:

By 2006, 38 percent of inpatients were aged 65 years and over, with those aged 75 years and over comprising 24 percent of all inpatients.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr005.pdf page1​

Anyone who is honest can see that I did not get this figure from "listing various list prices for medical procedures and the price that medicare paid, implying this showed a 38% reduction of what private pays" as you falsely claimed.

And yet you still insist on this argument. All I can do is attribute it to intellectual dishonesty on your part. Others can decide for themselves.

How is 433% it a "necessary" margin?

 

We have moved way beyond your original post on this subject. After repeated denials of what I said you did, and after I took the time to find the precise post I was referring to in which you did precisely what I said you did, you now want to go back to your original post and pretend that is the entirely of our conversation, and even going so far as to reposting something from your original post and saying for anyone who wants to check it out?....lol....cmon dude.

How is 433% a necessary margin?....... Probably the biggest barrier here is your complete ignorance that differing margins are required in differing industries in order for companies in that industry to survive. I dont have time to give you a dissertation on all things financial. I already have pointed out to you that in industries that rely heavily upon R & D dollars, that the largest chunk of required margin is to cover the R & D costs and almost none of it is relative to the manufacturing costs. The term necessary refers to the amount required to make a viable business model. Let me make this easy for you. Lets say a drug company spends 1 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. Lets also say this drug is used to treat a condition that only 10 people have. They would have to charge 100 million per patient in order to break even. The fact that it only then costs them 10 cents to manufacture that product has almost NOTHING to do with its eventual price. Of course that is an impossible hypothetical, but if you pay attention to the issue at play, it illustrates perfectly why manufacturing cost is not always the determinant of what specific margin is necessary in order for a business model to be viable. R & D is not the only factor that can increase necessary margin relative to manufacturing costs, but it is just one example of such a compounding factor.

 

Uh, ... lol ... yeah dude. I mean, like, of course. That initial post is where I presented the 38% figure, which you falsely claimed I got from "listing various list prices for medical procedures and the price that medicare paid, implying this showed a 38% reduction of what private pays." You know, the thing you've been saying I was "intellectually dishonest" about for 5 posts now. I mean, c'mon, dude.

That's cool; I didn't expect you'd be able to explain it.

I'll just go with the observation that the medical equipment industry was the 4th most profitable industry in the US, and we can leave it at that.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/performers/industries/profits/

 

They are going broke sir and everyone of them will tell you it is because of the fact that medicare underpays often substantially for sevices rendered. Yes they have what is called a customary fee for each type of service, unfortunately that customary fee has little to nothing to do with the actual cost of the service. That customary fee tends to be equal to smewhere between 25 and 75% of the cost depending on the service rendered. The fact that they pay 100% of that customary is essentially meaningless.

 

Oh how divinely clever! You took my usage of the word "dude" and turned it into valley girl speak!...brilliant!
I have referenced that post of yours from the denver post several times now, and it is to that which I have been refuting. I have been 100% correct in my assertion about the wrong implication from that post. You on the other hand, keep trying to make it about the 38% number, and at one point you successfully got me to mistakingly take up the 38% number, thinking it was going back to that post, but coincidentally in that post I had said 37%, which is where any confusion arose. I guess it is my bad for not catching on to your non sequitur.

Oh I explained it. You simply dont understand it. You go right ahead and believe that manufacturing costs are the sole determinant of any and all necessary selling margin. Of course that will make you a complete idiot on the subject, but I am rapidly getting the impression that is ok with you.

I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink.

 

Just trying to bring it to your level, dude.

As is abundantly clear from everyone whose followed this thread, the 38% figure did not come from the Denver Post article or the yahoo.com or NPR articles I cited or any of the other scores of articles that came out about the recent release of the Medicare database. Nor did I ever attempt to make those articles about the 38%. Anyone can look at my post #340 for themselves, I state the reason I cited the articles right at the top of the page: "The cost of medicine is the cost of medicine. How we pay for it is, however, is the key factor in how much we spend on healthcare. Medicare pays much less for health care than the private insurance (or non-insured) system."

In fact, the articles had nothing to do with the 38% figure. What those articles show is what I explicitly stated: that Medicare indeed pays less for health care services than private insurers, and multiples less than what non-insured folks are charged. Those articles, reporting on the data in the Medicare database, reinforce and corroborate the general conclusion I made in my initial post: That Medicare is far more cost effective at delivering health care than the private system.

And then, in that same post, 5 pages ago, I state exactly were the 38% figure came from: "I'm using one figure -- inpatient visits -- and using that as the basis for the proportion of overall health care procedures. There is no multiple compounding. If the number of in patient visits is an accurate proxy for total health care procedures, then my calculations are accurate because there is no additional assumptions or compounding involved."

I don't know why you insist and pursuing this same false line of argument that I somehow derived the 38% figure from these other articles. I appreciate you make mistakes, we all do, you've made plenty of them, but why do you insist on continuing a false argument you've now acknowledged you made a mistake?

Yet another false characterization of my post. The MO of the intellectually dishonest. I never said that "manufacturing costs are the sole determinant of any and all necessary selling margin" nor would I ever say such a thing. It is not by definition.

Maybe he doesn't like the koolaid you got in there.

 

How much does your doctor or hospital charge you for a visit or surgery? Mine cost me nothing at the point of delivery. And why? Simply because the element of competition does not exist, and there is no middle-man taking his cut. We have had universal healthcare since 1948. Nobody complains about the existence of the NHS-in fact the only complaints we're hearing here are from those who don't want our government destroying it and turning it into the hopelessly inept American model.

 

The British love their national healthcare.

The Candians love their national healthcare.

American seniors love their national health care.

The 1% love their 40% of America's wealth.

 

I never said the 38% figure came from the Denver Post article. I mentioned how disingenuous you posting the Denver Post article was and the incorrect implication you were claiming from it. After several posts on the subject, YOU harkened back to the 38% number from your original post, not me. You were responding to MY statement about the Denver Post article and pretended I was referring to your original post. That is where any confusion came in. In fact it wasnt confusion at all, because I was preceisely correct in my assertion about the Denver Post article, and the only refuge you had left was to pretended it was about your original post.

Even still, you are misrepresenting what the Denver Post article said when you claim that it shows that "Medicare indeed pays less for health care services than private insurers" It shows no such thing in any form or fashion. The deception from you CONTINUES.

See above. I never said you derived your 38% figure from the Denver Post. ONLY you did.

I hate being so redundant, but your intellectual dishonesty leaves me no choice. I will re post the relevant posts so that it will be plain to see that in no way have I mis characterized your post as you claim.

To which I said "How is 433% a necessary margin?.......

To which you said...

To which I said

To which you said

When seeing it in this fashion, it is clear that I havent mis characterized your post even remotely. You may not have said that "manufacturing costs are the sole determinant of any and all necessary selling margin", but you certainly implied it. Your insistence that a selling margin relative to manufacturing costs of 433% is exhorbitant, and needing of an explanation shows that you clearly do not understand that selling margin relative to manufacturing costs is NOT the only variable involved here. Taking your words to their logical conclusion in no manner shape or form constitutes a mis characterization of your words.

 

Abolish the AMA medical-drug monopoly over health care in America. Educate doctors by the apprentice system where they earn while they learn.
Promote health care that focuses on the finding the cause of health problems instead of the usual cut-burn and poison system of treating symptoms.

 

From your posts:

Really, you've already admitted the obvious, that you made a mistake. How long are you going to beat this dead horse?

I didn't get the 38% figure from any lists, or disparate statistics, or the Denver Post that you've been harping on about for 5 pages now.

 

Yes, I acknowledged at one point I got confused after several posts on the subject where you all of a sudden brought up the 38% number. Of course that confusion was because of your non sequitur that was responding to my post about the Denver Post article.This was my subject, you were responding to me, and I was referring to the post about the Denver Post article. STOP trying to pretend it was about ANYTHING else.

I am not beating a dead horse, I am clearing up the nonsense that you are trying to spew. Ive run into your type before. You think if you throw enough sand around and confuse the subject just enough, no one will be able to see, and your ignorance then will not be noticed. Your ignorance shows as proudly as a babboon's red ass.

 

You can say whatever you want. The record speaks for itself. I posted the figure showing 38% of inpatient visits are by seniors in my very first post on the subject, well before the other articles. The issue from the very start was that 38% figure, and whether it represents an accurate proxy for estimating the percentage of health care overall used by seniors, since that is the only issue you've criticized my analysis about.

And all we've seen from you is 5 pages of flapping about how I supposedly came up with the number from lists or whatever you dreamed up, and you've been totally wrong about it from the get go. And still you're going on about it.

What is shows about you I'll let others decide.

 

Keep throwing that sand!!!!! Its what you do best.
I do suggest you try some sunscreen on that big exposed red baboon ass of yours....lol

 

But in total, it costs you however much of your tax money is being spent on healthcare, plus however much inflation from increased healthcare spending affects you as a consumer. And that's not including any gov't debt to pay for healthcare as well.

Except you've got a shortage of doctors in the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ily-doctors-leaves-health-care-in-crisis.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...-wards-behind-thousands-of-deaths-a-year.html

And government spending on healthcare has quadrupled since you nationalized it in 1948:



This is because there is no competition and price controls in sectors of the economy create shortages of supply (doctors). This is Econ 101 stuff but that logic doesn't matter to you because your politicians have successfully hidden the costs and shortcomings from you, so you think it's efficient and "free".

The American model is not supposed to be efficient for doing anything except solidifying corporate profits by legislating laws like Obamacare.

 

So, to all those that claim that health care in the US is better than anywhere in the world, explain why Ray Manzarek chose to go to Germany for his cancer treatment instead of staying in the US?

Anyone?

 

Because that hospital happens to be one of the centers conducting a clinical trial on an experimental bile duct cancer treatment called endohyperthermia. When all reasonable hope is gone, many people seek out these types of trials in a last ditch effort to avoid the inevitable. Clinical trials are typically conducted in multiple locations throughout the world, and this particular trial is being held at that hospital.

 

So, that treatment is not available in the US. Got it.

 

That EXPERIMENT is not being conducted in the US. Clinical trials are typically multi centered, which means they are conducted in various locations across the globe in order to account for varying ethinicites, cultures etc. Many are also conducted in South America and even Africa. If you are trying to take that information to derive that therefore South American, and African countries have the best health care systems in the world, you are on the wrong track to say the very least.

 

Health care crisis -- a misnomer. Our crisis isn't HEALTH CARE -- it's HEALTH COST. Perhaps if our feckless political leaders were to address the astronomical costs of frivolous malpractice lawsuits and deal with tort reform, we would cure at least one cause of the overall problem.

I'm reminded of the man with the gangrenous leg, sedated on the operating table. The surgeon and his team removed the hapless patient's wrong leg.

Unfortunately, the man couldn't sue. He didn't have a leg to stand on.....

 

By that logic, Mexico has a superior health care system to the US since laetrile is available there for cancer treatment.

 

Geez, the ignorance of Americans. I mean it's not your fault in that you've obviously never lived anywhere else. But it IS your fault in that you're so easily duped and willing to believe the BS and tripe fed to you without question. When i lived in Vienna, I met lots of Americans who came there for the Dobling Private Clinic or who were going over to Hirslanden Clinic in Switzerland. There are also hospitals in Ottawa and Mexico City that I've known Americans left the US to get treatment.
To think that it's impossible for any hospital outside the USA to be better at a specialty or specific treatment is just the most ludicrous and ignorant thing that anyone (other than an isolated American) could imagine.

 

unregulated lassie faire capitalism and private charity along with the resultant medical product commodification

remember shortages are onyl due to government regulation and overspending and taxation, including government school

 

Solve Healthcare in ten minutes.....

1. Eliminate the law forcing people to buy insurance within their own state.

2. Stop giving 500 billion dollars a year to employer based insurance companies

3. Expand non-profit tax exemptions and allow them to overcome the for profit insurance companies

4. Begin a national charity in which people can donate a portion of their tax returns to those who cannot pay various medical expenses

5. Encourage the states to develop non-profit services through tax law

Basically I believe the NATURAL state of healthcare in a free market system would end up being non-profit. The REASON we see massive for profit companies with not so brilliant track records is because the Federal Govt pumps almost half a trillion dollars a year into employer based insurance companies via corporate welfare and tax exemptions. That is essentially socialism btw. And like all socialist things what happened is the other TYPES of insurance providers were either put out of business or not allowed to flourish in all markets. We have a few non profit Insurance companies but they mostly handle prescription drugs or other specific areas. Most of them atm are also religious organization but as the market reset itself you would see a large variety of these companies appear.

The reason non profits would eventually replace the current model is very simple. Without government assistance there is no way the for profit companies would be able compete. Citizens don't generally feel comfortable with for profit companies in charge of their healthcare nor do they want politicians doing it. The answer is a pure market solution and hit the reset button. The second edge non-profits would win out is charitable donations. Not only would they generate more revenue to redistribute to their customers but various businesses around the country would see non-profit insurance companies as being a safe and popular investment for public relations. Billions of dollars of grants could eventually make their way into the system reducing the rates on everyone. Over time these non-profits will compete with each other and create better systems. They will provide far superior service to their customers because after all..... there is no benefit to withholding claims in a non profit insurance company.

What people don't realize is that America does not have a free market. Many service related things like healthcare would most certainly be non profit in a purely free market. The REASON we have the current system and the reason it's so screwed up is that insurance companies shell out huge amounts of money to politicians so they can write laws which benefit the companies.... ie Obamacare. There has never been a more far reaching law that will make a few people rich. The bill was written by thousands of lobbyists working directly for those companies then slapped on the table as a solution to all our problems. In reality insurance rates are skyrocketing because the law forces every single customer to pay for many things he would not buy on his own. So they get to charge you more for services you will never use in the name of "evening out costs." And finally it will force every single person in America onto the insurance roles creating millions of customers overnight. those who choose the exchange option will be supplemented with tax dollars.

So my solutions are above. Obama's solutions were to make the health insurance companies as rich as they could possibly be and screw the hell out of the American people in the process.