Reply With Quote
Here's an easier way to lower the cost of health care: Public Option.
1. Health care and profits are conflicts of interest.
So....Federally mandated cap on profit margins for all health care fields and insurance companies. Anything related to the health care industry will operate within these profit margins, hopefully only 10-15% over cost of staying in operation. Others, such as hospital care - employees, doctors, building maintenance, medical equipment, etc.. will operate at cost of operations only. Non-profit. This will drastically reduce price of care.
2A. A significant portion of the 10-15% profits will go to research and grants.
No longer rely on donations and other unreliable sources to pay for researching the cure for diseases and medical advancements. Scientists and doctors who wish to go into research will have a secure, non-biased, source of income to begin their work.
2B. Build a large, multi-million dollar research facility.
Funded by what I said up there in 2A. This facility will again, be non-profit, only spending cost of operation. It will be a State of the Art world center for human innovation in medicine. State of the art laboratories, equipment, research stations.
Only the best of the best in the country or the world, can come here to work. It will be a position of prestige. You will be surrounded by like-minded passionate scientists and doctors, all of them in a ZERO OUTSIDE-INFLUENCE environment. The best of the best, willing to go, would dedicate their lives to the advancement of medicine, with no corporate politics, etc.
3. Create significant tax incentives and other financial incentives to all manufacturers and hospitals related to the health care industry.
Reduce their cost of operations as low as possible, further reducing prices for the average american.
more later
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 02-25-2010 at 12:53 AM.
Here's an easier way to lower the cost of health care: Public Option.
I agree. A single-payer public option. We already have seen it work with regards to Medicare and Medicaid.
You're kidding right? You do realize that medicare is looking at about $50 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities don't you? The absolute last thing in the world we need is a public option that works like medicare.
Here's exactly why health care reform is such a dog's lunch
Lobbying run amok: Eight health care lobbyists for every member of Congress
By Raw Story
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010 -- 10:18 pm
submit to reddit Stumble This!
50Share
President Obama will meet with 22 high-ranking lawmakers Thursday to discuss health care reform and how to accomplish it.
But if newly released information about lobbying in 2009 is any indication, the private sector and its interests may already be secured.
For every member of Congress, there were eight lobbyists working to influence health care reform last year, according to research by The Center for Public Integrity.
That's about 4,525 total lobbyists from 1,750 companies that include 207 hospitals, 105 insurance companies and 85 manufacturing companies.
The biggest group by far were the trade and advocacy organizations, which accounted for a whopping 745 companies lobbying for their own vision of health care in the US.
One of the most powerful political groups in the capital, the AARP deployed no less than 58 lobbyists to fight for their cause.
The Center has also created a database that allows users to search by company and lobbyist and includes the amount each organization spent, the lobbying firms they hired, and the names of individual lobbyists who took the message to Congress.
One of the Center's interactive databases is available below.
After losing its super-majority in the Senate with the election of Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Congressional Democrats have little hope they can deliver on health care reform in coming weeks.
Republican opposition remains strong and Thursday's summit seems to offer little chance of real compromise.
From the amount of money and lobbyists that have been working against them, Democrats' hopes for health care reform may have been doomed at the outset.
========
Precisely, the corps and capitalists are sucking the wealth out of Americans, and have $Bs to pay just $Ks to bribe Congress and the WH into not touching the suck down of Americans' wealth.
aka, there will be no "bending the (costs = profits) curve down"
What is the "cost of operations" for a Doctor?
Lower the cost we as individuals pay. It wouldn't lower the actual cost of it.
All I know is, if I or my family have to wait for important medical procedures even though we can pay for them (like in the past)...I will turn green.
Dumbest statement of the week.
Like saying Food and profits are conflicts of interest. People gotta eat, right? They would die without eating.
So, how dare anyone make a profit off food?
"well...they shouldn't!!!!"
...and so it goes
My guess is that if you have the money you will be able to see anyone you want.
No, it will make things more expensive due to elimination of compe ion. We have costs associated with health care that other nations don't. Trial lawyers, and an over abundance of regulations.
Government is the problem. Not the solution.
Really? No company or individual ever used profit as a motive to develop a new product or provide a service that improved someone's health?
1. This already happens.2A. A significant portion of the 10-15% profits will go to research and grants.
2. This statement is in direct conflict with your first point where you said that health care and profits are conflicts of interest.
Already happening. Pfizer alone is spending over $7 billion a year on research & development.2B. Build a large, multi-million dollar research facility.
So you want to cap profits, and then give away financial incentives. Seems pretty contradictory to me.3. Create significant tax incentives and other financial incentives to all manufacturers and hospitals related to the health care industry.
are you trolling?
That is such a ridiculous counter-argument, I won't even respond for su ion of trolling.
Your logic is flawed, completely flawed in my eyes.
I will give you an analogy that represents what you just said
Bob : The German Third Reich was a terrible time in human history.
Jane : Really? No progress was made in the fields of medicine, aviation, engineering, physics, nuclear fission, television, rocketry, telecommunications and others during the Third Reich?
It is not a conflict of interest. The "profits" are being returned to the health industry, instead of to the pockets of investors and corporations.
Corporate politics.
They don't want to discover cures. They want to discover new patents. A new patent drug = $$$$.
They don't make money by curing you. They make money by selling you pills. Private corporations, whose sole interest is business as a publicly traded company, can never be trusted to serve the people and use their resources correctly.
Lowering costs.
Lower taxes and incentives = lower cost of operation = lower cost of equipment and care = consumer pays less.
Thank goodness the government can though.
Huh?
You said it was a conflict of interest.It is not a conflict of interest. The "profits" are being returned to the health industry, instead of to the pockets of investors and corporations.
And your plan changes this how?Corporate politics.
They don't want to discover cures. They want to discover new patents. A new patent drug = $$$$.
They don't make money by curing you. They make money by selling you pills. Private corporations, whose sole interest is business as a publicly traded company, can never be trusted to serve the people and use their resources correctly.
So where does the money to fund those incentives or replace lost tax revenue come from? The consumers/taxpayers?Lowering costs.
Lower taxes and incentives = lower cost of operation = lower cost of equipment and care = consumer pays less.
"What is the "cost of operations" for a Doctor"
I read a report in the past year on a study that found on avg independent general practice doctors had an overhead of $250K, which goes to staff, esp staff to process insurance paperwork, billing clients, paying bills to test labs, and generally fighting with insurance companies. That overhead forces many independent docs into groups and clinics where the overhead is shared.
Now, combine that $250K overhead with the crisis in the availability of general practice docs in many rural areas, and you see why it's a hard to get docs to work in rural areas.
So a public option/universal Medicare would remove 20%+ of the overheads for-profit private insurers have to cover (vs about 5% overhead for Medicare), which should result in lower premiums.
Couple the above with an insured pool of 100M+ clients (110M said in 2008 they would buy public option, don't know much detail there).
Also, Medicare patients poll more satisfied with their care than do for-profit-insurance patients.
If you're healthy and not a "paitent", then saying you're happy with your private insurer (and therefore, Medicare sucks) is irrelevant, but that's the kind of stupidity that right-wingers think is relevant, but ... they're right wingers.
There's a annual cost of treating uninsured:
"A 2003 study in Health Affairs estimated that uninsured people in the U.S. received approximately $35 billion in uncompensated care in 2001"
... about 10 years ago, figure that's at least double now (cost inflation, more uninsured as people have los insurance/cancelled, and sicker (fatter) population).
Universal coverage/access would allow uninsured people to get care, get it sooner, so reduce the numbers who wait too long until their disease is more advanced, and much more expensive, and perhaps incurably late. Whether they would get care is a problem of their education rather than their cost.
You haven't placed enough thought into this discussion before hitting the "Submit Reply" button
Questions are too hard for you huh?
Individual plans are the worst ones. See Anthem Blue Cross in California.
I think most people stopped reading after this statement.
Alternate le to this thread.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
These are conflicting statements. If health care and profits are a conflict of interest there should be NO profits in the health insurance industry, not caps on profits.
I believe the private sector should be able to charge whatever it wants ONLY if there is real compe ion from a Public Option. It's like public and private schools. Private schools, especially for-profit ones like Phoenix, can chage whatever they want to the suckers who will buy it as long as there is an afordable option like U of Texas or Texas A&M system for people to choose from.
Well, if there are no profits whatsoever, then there is no money for new buildings, new expensive equipments, etc.
The "profits" would basically be funneled right back into health care, so nobody is making money off of it.
The difference between private corporate profits and a profit used specifically to help and fuel the health industry is vast. That is why.
The way most businesses work nowadays, is to raise the prices as high as you can get away with. If the consumer is willing to pay 200 dollars for a seat to watch a basketball game, why would I charge 100 dollars? That is the thinking that is sucking the nation dry in the health care industry.
If it costs 35 cents to make a syringe, by the time it's used on you, the cost of that syringe is now 95 cents or 1 dollar. The company that sells the materials to make syringes raises the price to make a profit. They don't just sell it at cost. The company that actually makes the syringe raises the price enough to make a profit. The company that ships the syringes across the country, again, does not charge you only the cost of staying in business, they charge you enough to make a profit. And on this goes down the line.
Each one of these companies practicing in normal, capitalist business practices.
The problem is, health care is not like selling you a car, a TV, a hamburger, or cable TV. This is your life, and you can't choose to LIVE WITHOUT. If you live without health care when you need it, you die.
Again, privately owned business, publicly traded companies, are concerned with turning PROFITS. NOT with saving your life.
It is a conflict of interest. Period. One side wants to make money and get away with providing you with as little coverage as possible, and the other side is concerned with staying alive and needs to spend money on their health care.
This is not debatable.
Privately owned companies making profits in the health care industry is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Period.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 02-25-2010 at 07:28 PM.
Health care is a special field that cannot be lumped in with the rest of capitalist business practices. Period.
Think of all the money in the health care industry that is going to investors, private pockets, corporate profits
This is a lot of money that SHOULD NOT be going into their pockets. It should stay in the pockets of americans, by lowering care costs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
