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

What a compelling rebuttal. Your parents must be proud.

 

Sure. It's not nonsense. I posted the data supporting my position. Feel free to address it.

Anything to back that up? Medicare is wildly popular. Even the Tea Parties love it (remember the "Government hands off our Medicare" signs?). I find it hard to believe that a program so popular is denying people procedures they need or want.

It would be interesting to compare how many procedures Medicare turns down, versus how many procedures private insurers deny, wouldn't it?

Given ridiculous amounts providers are overcharging, I believe Medicare pays a much lower percentage than that. Which is great and why a universal Medicare would save us a huge amount of money overall.

Sounds bogus. But even if that were true, with Medicare providing about 38% of the health care services at only 18% of the cost, it is still vastly more cost effective, even with the fraud, than the private system.

Source? What is insurance overhead?

Write your Republican Tea Party friends and tell them to stop cutting spending.

A Republican doctor. Hmm, I wonder where his biases lie? And citing Heritage Foundation for his support?

His report doesn't even try to make a comparison of the costs of Medicare versus the costs of the private system, and so does not even address, let alone rebut, my posts and analysis.

Some notes:

His report includes Medicaid as well as Medicare. I'm just talking about the Medicare system.

The report illustrates that the $100 billion fraud claim is dubious. First, it is talking about both Medicare and Medicaid. As to the $100 billion fraud claim, Coburn's report
states

"AARP President Barry Rand and others have estimated there may be up to $100 billion taxpayer dollars lost to waste, fraud, and abuse annually in these two programs.26


For support, it links to an Orlando newspaper article by Newt Gingrich (!) which simply asserts that fraud costs Medicare and Medicaid $100 billoin a year, with no source or citation for the claim.

In other words, it sounds like one of those RW propaganda fabrications where some right wing paper makes a statement, and it is just carried by other conservative channels (like Coburn's report) as if it were sound fact.

Here's the link to the Orlando article: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...-care-fraud-home-health-medicare-and-medicaid

Coburn is just focused on cutting Govt spending, not on cutting costs for health care overall. To cut government spending, he proposes raising the age for Medicare, (meaning fewer people will be eligible for it), putting a cap on individual spending (which I guess means when you've hit the cap they wheel you out into the street) and making it partially means tested (which I agree makes sense).

In sum, his report doesn't even address the issues I've presented. The $100 billion fraud claim is dubious and unsupported, and in any case applies to both Medicaid and Medicare. Finally, even if that dubious claim were true, we still have the fact that, even with the fraud element, Medicare is providing approximately 38% of the services at only 18% of the cost, far more cost effectively than the private system.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that you've had your laugh, feel free to provide substance to support your position. Maybe you feel your laughter is an impressive argument. Not to me. Maybe to others, up to them.

 

I think they did it in part because a conservative culture of deregulation, that started with Reagan, had become the mainstream thinking in Washington and the country.

After a disastrous housing bubble, we see where that culture has taken us.

 

What you dont understand is that there are listed costs and then there are the actual costs that an insurer pays.In the case of the device that I sell, when I told you that private insurance pays 10.5k and Medicare pays 10.2 k.....the listed cost for this product is 16k. You are listing the equivalent of the 16k price, and assuming that private pays the 16k and Medicare pays the 10.2k, but that is separated from reality of what is actually paid. If using your logic, I would claim that Medicare pays 37% less (5.8 divided by 16), but that would be incorrect. People that dont have a clue what they are talking about, only parroting statistics they read on a pro universal healthcare article,SWEARING that right there in black and white, they have proof positive that Medicare pays 37% less. They think they are informed in making this proclamation, they sincerely in their heart believe they are speaking the gospel, and they are also 100% WRONG. That is precisely the position that you are holding . You have amassed an almagamation of facts and figures that tell half truths due to the complexities of this entire system, and you think that single handedly you have amassed PROOF of your concept, all the while not having the understanding and perspective to realize that you are wearing your ignorance on your sleeve for all to see.

 

The position I staked out in the argument wasnt necessarily the that United States is the BEST in the world ( its right up there, but I wasnt making that claim necessarily), instead my position was and is that the WHO data is not worth the paper on which it is printed. Dont misrepresent what I said, then go on with your misrepresentation of my words and claim that im not defending my assertion ( which is actually the assertion that YOU are trying to put in my mouth). You see, my whole point was that there isnt a standardized method of collecting medical outcomes data across countries, and therefore we cant look to statistical comparisons to assess differing health systems. With that being my point, of COURSE Im not then going on to point to statistics that the United States is the best, because that would be just as intellectually dishonest as the WHO analysis.

LOL...and by the way........You mean that your article actually has a REAL doctor that is ACTUALLY part of the industry?.....WOW....thats impressive.

 

I think they did it mostly because they are globalists and they aren't concerned with the good of the domestic economy beyond where it benefits them.

 

I apologize. Upon looking back I have realized that my post regarding the WHO rankings was not a response to you. It was, however, a response contradicting an other poster's assertion that the US health care system is the best in the world.

Regardless, the point here is that the level of treatment is only as good as the percentage of the population that have access to it. The current system does not allow access to the poor in the US, until they are 65 and on Medicare. If people had access to better health care at a younger age, it would go a long way towards prevention and reducing the costs of care for the elderly. The profit motive in the system is also counterproductive because it creates incentive for the industry to promote long term treatment options over less profitable prevention measures.

 

It's more solid than your baseless assertion that Medicare is more cost efficient than the private sector, which you backed up by speculation that you refuse to prove.

 

Unless you're on government health care, this post is an obvious lie. You're a liar. Easy enough to prove. Don't post anything about yourself. Just post a link to the company program benefits outline page, that provides this magical policy of yours.
Here is what will happen next: Black Sand will make a BS excuse as to why a link to a company page can't be provided!

 

Speaking of liars....... Twice in this thread you have put forward the notion that 90% of Americans that come down with a serious illness will be forced into bankruptcy. This is NOT true. Twice I have pointed this out to you, and twice you have not responded. I have asked you to provide a source for this claim. Undoubtedly it will show that 90% of Americans without health insurance that get a serious illness or accident will have to file bankruptcy, which is of course drastically different than the claim you continue to promulgate.

A lie by omission ........... is still a LIE.

 

For you to put ANY stock in the World health Organization is just to funny. They have Canada ranked 30th, the U.S. 38th yet, as I already pointed out, the Canadian PM came to this country for health care because his country was to slow. And Saudi Arabia being ranked 26th?? And the United Arab Emirates 27th. Hehehehehe.... YES, I WILL laugh when ever someone goes by their ranking!!! And here's something you overlook whether by chance or by choice, England has their little do or die lottery;

Some extremely expensive treatments may be available in some areas but not in others, the so-called postcode lottery.

So here we go with rationed health care;

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html
Hip replacements, cataract surgery and tonsil removal are among operations now being rationed in a bid to save the NHS money.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=health-care-rationing-is
Health Care Rationing Is Nothing New [Excerpt]

http://www.aproundtable.org/healthcare/nice.html
Nothing N.I.C.E. about Healthcare Rationing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21519896
Why the NHS has to ration care

u want to tout England's health care????

 

I understand it just fine. There are costs and then what providers charge. Your company charges 16k for an item that costs $3k to make. Illustrating part of the reason why our health care system is so frigging expensive.

You're not using my logic at all. My logic is that if 38% of inpatient health care visits are for seniors, and the stays are longer than other age groups, it's probably that overall health care procedures are in the same proportion. And no one has offered one argument as to why that is not a logical probability or offered any evidence that contradicts it. Then my logic is that if Meidcare is covering 38% of the hospital visits, but only paying 18% of health care costs, it is providing health care at a substantially more cost effect manner than the private sector system it.
And I've cited many other sources supporting that contention.

Feel free to present any evidence contradicting it. All you've given us so far is blather.

 

What you "explained" to me didn't really answer my question. Commercial banks could already trade in Mortgage backed securities, and credit default swaps didn't cause either the housing bubble and the CDO market survived the financial crash. But I wasn't really asking about them. I was asking about why you think Graham Leach Bliley caused the financial crisis. In fact, you bring up an interesting point, although accidently.

When Bear Sterns crashed, it was bought out by JP Morgan Chase. That wouldn't have been possible before Graham Leach Bliley. Same thing with Lehman. It was bought by Barclays. I think the law probably helped mitigate the financial crisis. I hardly think we would have been better off if there were no buyers, due to the artificial divide between commercial and investment banking.

 

This wasn't directed to you, but to someone else who has self identified as a truther, and thinks the US government was involved in 9/11. So it's a natural question to wonder why someone who thinks the government engineered the deaths of over 3000 people within their own country but.... let's trust them with healthcare.

So are you self identifying as a truther yourself? I'm not interested in watching any videos narrated by Rosie O'Donnell on the melting point of steel if you are one of "them."

 

Nice dodge. I saw it on the news. They were talking about how 2/3 of all bankruptcies in the US are medically related and they had a bankruptcy attorney on who said that if you got cancer (typical cost exceeds $100K out of pocket) or a major car accident (typical cost also exceeds $100K), you had a 90% chance of filing chapter 7. Now maybe YOU have an extra $100K sitting around because you know, the economy is so good and everything, but most people don't.
But fine. I can't find the show so I can't prove. I retract my statement as being unverifiable, however, if you think a system in which 2/3 of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills is just peachy, you're as whack as you are a liar. Oh and in case you think that statistic is also made up:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
http://www.pnhp.org/bankruptcy/Bankruptcy Fact Sheet - Updated.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/medical-bills-bankruptcy_n_931297.html


So. Your mythical BullShet policy you dodged the question on? Let's see it? Oh? You can't verify it? You don't even have anything CLOSE? Yeah, we knew that. You're a liar.

 

In regards to the 90% thing, it is just preposterous. the numbers of people coming down with serious illnesses or accidents in comparison to the numbers of bankruptcies just dont add up to anything near 90%. Even the part about 100k out of pocket is preposterous. If you have insurance, you are NOT paying 100k out of pocket. Thats what you are missing is "those without insurance".

In regards to you saying I dodged a question, I think that you are mistaking me for someone else. I saw you call someone a liar, and I jumped in to once again point out how you are flaunting this obviously incorrect statistic.

 

Two words. Free market. Its all a racket. ACA is a power grab by leftist losers.

 

You clearly did not "understand it just fine", because I said you didnt "understand it ", in response to a post you made listing various list prices for medical procedures and the price that medicare paid, implying this showed a 38% reduction of what private pays, when in fact private also pays a significant reduction. This illustrates perfectly your overarching ignorance on this subject and how you keep presenting what you "think" is statistical proof, when in fact it is a half truth that skews the reality to the point that you are no closer to reality than if you had no statistics at all. You understand this subject on the political blogoshpere level, and on this complex subject, means you dont understand squat.

You dont know the cost structure of my company, and from your last statement you still dont get that we dont make 16k; we make just over 10. This isnt a mass marketed item that is sold at Wal Mart for only double of its manufacturing costs. My companies return on investment is lower than 5%, and like any other company, in any other industry, we struggle to be acceptably profitable and keep our doors open. Yet you persist with your ignorance once again as if it is a badge of honor.

In regards to this 38% of in patient healthcare visits....first off, I remember that post, and remember it being a listing of 10 or so disparate statistics from disparate sources using disparate methodologies, and as such i discounted right off the bat and have basically ignored it. I never actually saw anything there even remotely worthy of debating the 38% number because it simply led to nowhere. There could be a million unforeseen reasons that have the potential to skew that statistic one way or the other. One thing off the top of my head would be the percentage of seniors that are in the nursing home that have had their medical turned over to medicaid as a result. Those people utilize an awful lot of medical dollars and it is not on the books of Medicare. The fact of the matter is, there are so many possible variations that skew that one way or the other. I will say this again, this subject is far too complex to break it down simplistically like you are trying to do. Even people that support your political viewpoint arent making the claim that you are in regards to how much cheaper Medicare is versus private. You have simply gone off on your own little hunt and peck for stats that you like, and are trying to put them together as if they are comparable and complete, which they are not. There are countless idiosyncracies of where differing dollars are accounted in differing categories etc etc etc.The fact that you HONESTLY think that Medicare can cut healthcare costs in half is embarrassing, and completely devoid of any semblance of understanding of this issue.

 

Iriemon your analysis is flawed. What medicare does is underpay for services rendered. This is why, inspite of covering 38% of care they are bearing 18% of costs. This is also why a lot of small rural hospitals are going broke they simply don't have enough other customers to whom they can transfer their losses on treating medicare and medicaid patents. It has nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with raw naked governmental power.
Obamacare will make this worse.

 

Think about it. Why would those rural hospitals be going broke? It's not because of Medicare, which pays 100% of its bill structure. It is because more and more folks that live in those areas cannot afford private insurance and don't have the money to pay their hospital bills.

Make Medicare universal for everyone and not just the elderly and those rural hospitals would be fine.

 

You don't understand it at all. That is not what I did.

Any company that is running a 433% margin is doing beyond fabulous. Even diamond sellers don't manage that.

These kind of wildly profitable charges is another big reason our health care costs so much.

You remember wrong about what I did. Your criticism is based on a faulty understanding of my methodology and is therefore baseless.

I'll note again that you have provided not on iota of evidence contradicting mine as to the proportion of procedures Medicare performs.

You're point about some seniors getting Medicaid is a valid one, as that would supplement the amount that Medicare pays. While you failed to provide any source of information to substantiate your claim, I did some research. About 20% of Medicaid went to seniors in 2007. Medicare expenditures in 2006 were $180.6 billion, and 20% of that, or $36.12. We'd need to add that into the equation.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-brown-says-elderly-account-two-thirds-medi/

That article provides another interesting metric: 8.5% of Medicaid beneficiaries were seniors, but accounted for 20.7% of Medicaid spending. Another fact supporting the results of the data and analysis I posted proving that seniors take up a disproportionate amount of health care compared to other age groups.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-brown-says-elderly-account-two-thirds-medi/

 

That is precisely what you did. You mentioned several list prices, then listed what Medicare paid in relation to those list prices. Private also pays a significant reduction from list price.

This is simply an ignorant statement. Selling cost relative to manufacturing costs varies widely from industry to industry. For a simple example, look at the pharma industry. It takes about one billion dollars to bring one drug to market. They have approx 12 yrs of patent protection to recoup this initial investment. The manufacturing costs for that drug may only be 30 cents per pill, but the only way they can survive is to charge $30 per pill, and even with that, they can still lose money on the overall investment. Manufacturing costs in that situation have almost no bearing whatsoever on the price, because the price is mostly reflective of the R & D costs in developing that product. Somehow you think that you can look solely at manufacturing costs relative to selling costs in order to determine if a company is doing well, which reflects a deep ignorance of the business principles involved. A truer measure of how a company is performing would be to look at return on capital employed, but if you dont grasp the part about sales margin, I highly doubt you will grasp return on investment.

I am not remembering wrong what you did. You took disparate statistics using disparate data collection methods, and are trying to therefore pretend you can do that to arrive at a legitimate conclusion. You have acknowledged a couple of the areas where these numbers contradict themself, and instead of acknowledging with conflicting numbers that you cant make comparisons, you ignore the conflict and continue forward with your conclusions as if there isnt a conflict. You keep asking for evidence contradicting your claims...... you see... in order to do that, I would have to commit the same wrong that you are doing by bringing in more data collected from disparate sources with disparate methods and mis applying them. I have more intellectual honesty than that.

 

That is false. Anyone can read my post themselves and see what I did. http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...e-crisis-us-do-nothing-23.html#post1062598435

I agree if it is a patented item margins are generally higher. You didn't say that.

I didn't do that at all. Anyone can see what I did in my post here: http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...e-crisis-us-do-nothing-23.html#post1062598435

I would expect that someone with intellectual honesty would not mischaractersize my posts.

And we can note again you've failed for provide any information or data showing what portion of health services medicare covers that contradicts the data I used in my discussion.

 

Here is the quote where you did precisely what I just said you did

Which is why I said "You mentioned several list prices, then listed what Medicare paid in relation to those list prices. Private also pays a significant reduction from list price."

You didnt ask. Instead you opted to say....

If you are so aware that patented products fetch higher margins, one would think you would have asked rather than going off half cocked with half information and pretending you have a clue as to which you speak....which..ummm....come to think of it.....is what you have done this ENTIRE thread.

 

Are you really that intellectually dishonest? That quote was from a post I made later, after my post showing the 38% figure.

I posted that later information because it reinforces and supports what I wrote in my post, not (as you falsely claimed) that I used that data for the 38% figure.

You said the cost was $3000, that is what I went on.

433% is still a great return even with a patent.