It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is the right-wing resolution to healthcare, anyways?

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge

Too bad anyone that calls it that is deemed lazy, stupid, and bad for society by some.

The American dream... I wonder if it's within reach, as a whole?




posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: yesyesyes

Right.. That's what I keep wondering..

Where is the proof that prices would drop?

You can't find the proof in things that already are more free market and such.. Those markets have developed and adapted over decades to offer the competitive pricing they do. Why on earth would Healthcare providers change their prices in days, weeks, or months?


Well look at the notion that competition drives down prices. Looks at things most American's consume regularly.

You could buy a soda for $.50-$.99 - 20 years ago. Today the choice of soda like beverages has increased 10 fold,
yet the prices of the same sodas have doubled and more.

Look at gas... Gas the output of gas has increased dramatically in 20 years, and yet we have seen periods where the price of gas has quadrupled.

A crappy McDonalds combo meal was $2.99-$3.99 in 1996, today the same food costs twice as much despite the introduction of many new options.

The principles Conservatives base their beliefs upon are illusory and completely based in fantasy.


The price difference reflects inflation. Merely saying the price doubled does not take into account that salaries for most people are also higher. You also have to consider that a lot of goods we consume are also dramatically cheaper, particularly technology based goods.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Technology based goods, yes. But look up real data like the price consumer index, and you'll see our money doesn't go as far as it used to.. For wood housing, bread and milk... Just the basics of feeding and sheltering a family, we are in a much different circumstance.
edit on 5-3-2016 by deadlyhope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: Edumakated

You're wrong about why healthcare costs so much. Well, partially wrong. The biggest reason healthcare costs so much, is because so few of the costs have any basis in reality. You aren't charged based on what it costs to provide the service, but instead you are charged prices based on "what the market will bear". In other words, they totally make up a price completely based on what they think they can get people or agencies to pay. Nothing will change in healthcare until this practice stops.


The reason there is no basis in reality as you put is because the consumer of the product (you) are not incentivized to look for value of services provided. Since you don't pay out of pocket, there is no price transparency. People don't shop around. I'm advocating for people to be in charge of their own healthcare spending so that the market can work efficiently like any other normal market.

Within the healthcare sector, you see free market principles working with elective services like cosmetic surgery, lasik, etc. Prices for those services drop dramatically because more often than not, the consumer is paying out of pocket. They shop around and Doctors are forced to compete on not only service and expertise, but price as well.

Government intervention is what has caused this distortion in prices.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

I simply have the belief that rich people are greedy.

All of those optional things you're talking about.... Are optional. That's why they have a competitive market. Lasik is not mandatory... Appendix bursts, Appendix surgery is. Someone will pay thousands more, even if the technology or training is less for something that saves their life.. The "market" knows this. Why wouldn't they take advantage of that?

Why would big pharma and hospitals reduce prices on care? You're examples work because they are things people don't deem necessary, therefore wouldn't pay hundreds of thousands like some cancer treatments cost....



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: yesyesyes

Right.. That's what I keep wondering..

Where is the proof that prices would drop?

You can't find the proof in things that already are more free market and such.. Those markets have developed and adapted over decades to offer the competitive pricing they do. Why on earth would Healthcare providers change their prices in days, weeks, or months?


Well look at the notion that competition drives down prices. Looks at things most American's consume regularly.

You could buy a soda for $.50-$.99 - 20 years ago. Today the choice of soda like beverages has increased 10 fold,
yet the prices of the same sodas have doubled and more.

Look at gas... Gas the output of gas has increased dramatically in 20 years, and yet we have seen periods where the price of gas has quadrupled.

A crappy McDonalds combo meal was $2.99-$3.99 in 1996, today the same food costs twice as much despite the introduction of many new options.

The principles Conservatives base their beliefs upon are illusory and completely based in fantasy.


The price difference reflects inflation. Merely saying the price doubled does not take into account that salaries for most people are also higher. You also have to consider that a lot of goods we consume are also dramatically cheaper, particularly technology based goods.


I think it is safe to say that prices have kept up with inflation, while wages have not which really is the point I am trying to illustrate. "The market" has no reason to lose profit to promote wages or, keep prices stagnant to benefit wage earners.

The problem is people have a tendency to want to assign a altruistic mechanism built into the free market that will keep Americans safe and working, but the problem is the free market does not care about Americans or workers, or if the market decimates America and Americans.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: Edumakated

You're wrong about why healthcare costs so much. Well, partially wrong. The biggest reason healthcare costs so much, is because so few of the costs have any basis in reality. You aren't charged based on what it costs to provide the service, but instead you are charged prices based on "what the market will bear". In other words, they totally make up a price completely based on what they think they can get people or agencies to pay. Nothing will change in healthcare until this practice stops.


The reason there is no basis in reality as you put is because the consumer of the product (you) are not incentivized to look for value of services provided. Since you don't pay out of pocket, there is no price transparency. People don't shop around. I'm advocating for people to be in charge of their own healthcare spending so that the market can work efficiently like any other normal market.

Within the healthcare sector, you see free market principles working with elective services like cosmetic surgery, lasik, etc. Prices for those services drop dramatically because more often than not, the consumer is paying out of pocket. They shop around and Doctors are forced to compete on not only service and expertise, but price as well.

Government intervention is what has caused this distortion in prices.


I work in the Health Insurance industry and I think the market is distorted because people will pay through the teeth to stay alive and maintain their health.

Interestingly enough, the doctors reimbursements have gone DOWN in the last 8 years I have been working for doctors...
This is insurance taking advantage of consumers and providers alike, they charge us more they pay the doctors LESS and the insurance company keeps more which is the point of business.

I will remind you that the 10 year period before Obamacare, namely 1998-2008, insurance premiums went up on average of 150%. This FAR outpaces inflation and eclipses wages -

I think many people, including yourself thing that there is motivation and impetus to keep insurance prices low, but the goal of business is to raise prices and make MORE money.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: yesyesyes

Right.

Can capitalists honestly answer the question.. Why has inflation in costs not been associated with equal rise of pay?

If supply and demand and how much your work is worth are real concepts... Why has only the price of the products gone up, while the people who actually created that product has not.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Edumakated

There's hardly any capitalism, anywhere!

Huge corporations have gotten so big, and so cozy with the government that no one can compete.

Universal healthcare didn't lead us down this path....
Gay marriage sure as hell didn't...
Abortions?
Weed?

It's not "liberal" policies or ideas or anything that made things the way they are...

No... The "freedom" to make all the money you want, at any cost, and the desire of the rich and powerful to use money to own the government, write the policies, gouge prices, etc lead us here. One-sided capitalism got us here, in my opinion.

You see, the rich don't want us citizens knowing our money has power. If we collectively were taught, and collectively exercised our purchasing power, such corrupt practices would not exist.

But no, one-sided capitalism is where the people believe they are at the mercy of those with more money, those who own the businesses they go to. They are basically taught and brainwashed with this idea that we cannot do anything other than accept it.


Currently we live in an Oligarchy filled with chrony capitalism. The ACA is NOT a socialist program, rather it is corporatist as you have duely pointed out. There is no good solution however, that is until this country's Oligarchy can be crushed. A good start is a protectionist policy of import tarriffs. NAFTA, CAFTA and the like need to go. We need an economy that isn't largely based on finance, services, etc. We need to bring production back and keep the estate tax so the Oligarchy doesn't implement policies that are against most of best interests while we thank them for it. Both Dems and Republicans are responsible for this, they play the population against each other with meaningless emotional wedge issue like guns and abortion. Hell it was good ol Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee(stayed on through Raegan and also worked for Obama), that almost single handedly dismantled this country's industrial base by making cash too expensive to borrow. If we can solve all these problems maybe, just maybe, can we think about fixing healthcare because until then they'll keep lining their pockets while saying:"screw the little guy"



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: yesyesyes

Right.

Can capitalists honestly answer the question.. Why has inflation in costs not been associated with equal rise of pay?

If supply and demand and how much your work is worth are real concepts... Why has only the price of the products gone up, while the people who actually created that product has not.


I think the primary flaw in "capitalist theory" is that consistent rises in wages only regularly occurs in jobs where there is a demand for expertise, in jobs where there is actually some for of competition to hire "the best". These are often times
office type jobs, executive jobs, policy making jobs and specialized jobs. These people observably do get good compensation in fields that have not stagnated as much as the rest of the economy.

There is no need for corporations to increase wages across the board, doing so decreases profit and creates less capital for growth.

I think this is a result of globalization and a complete disconnect of corporate businesses to the locales they serve.


Greed will kill America, and the entire ride there the conservative voices will say it was too much compassion that did us in. Compassion doesn't stagnate wages, wanting to constantly raise profits stagnates wages.
edit on 6-3-2016 by yesyesyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Let the wealthy get wealthier and hoard resources so the population in poverty continues to grow, and then...

Let the poor die. Natural selection and all that...



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: deadlyhope

Make health insurance illegal. If healthcare was purely capitalist (forcing everyone to either pay out of pocket, or use credit) then the bubble would pop. Yes there is a healthcare bubble, and it's huge.



I agree as well
If we closed down all the Health Insurance Companies for a set amount of time, prices would reset to where they should be, much lower. I am pretty sure the majority of Americans would not be able to afford that 50,000 surgery and prices would have to drop. Salaries and profits would drop as well.

There have been some that say, healthcare would only be for the rich
Or, why would anyone practice medicine if there is a drop in profits and prices?

There are thousands that work in the medical field across this country and they will not all be able to serve the wealthy.
They are not going to drop their job either and go work at a fast food restaurant either.

The problem with this approach though, is Big Insurance and Pharma Company Lobbyists do not want to quit meddling with our government and want to keep the gravy train going.

It is not going to mathematically work though when every other American thanks to Globalism is taking cuts and pay and have stagnate wages.

The same thing needs to happen to the Real Estate Market which is what out of wack as well
edit on 6-3-2016 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated


O'care was written by insurance companies because the insurance companies know that the legislatures are going to do it regardless.


You have to be joking.
Obamacare started with Insurance Lobbyists and their Puppet Politicians because they were running out of other peoples money to prop it up, thanks to the same Lobbyists that thought it was a good ideal to ship millions of jobs overseas.

It did not start with Poor People protesting for Free Insurance - They already got that from the ER
It did not start Illegal Immigrants protesting for Free Insurance - They also got that from the ER

It started with REVOLVING DOOR Pharmaceutical Industry and Insurance Industry Politicians and Lobbyists
It seems the problem is you want to look at Government and Industry as TWO Separate Entities because god forbid you would not want to put any blame on the private sector.

The Government is OWNED by Corporations and Banks in this Country and that is who wholly funds their presidential campaigns as well.

There is no conspiracy needed to explain that there are people who will do anything in their pursuit for power and wealth.

I suppose I could say there is a conspiracy going on with my neighbor.
He is owns a business and calls himself a Job Creator you see but I think there is a conspiracy going on because he has only hired one person and is amassing all that wealth for himself. Get the Point? There is no conspiracy when wealth and power come into play. Human Nature explains it all on its own.


www.opensecrets.org...

Top Lobbying Industries

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $3,146,090,212
Insurance $2,190,651,832

Electric Utilities $2,013,127,133
Electronics Mfg & Equip $1,823,347,451
Business Associations $1,811,811,643
Oil & Gas $1,715,405,541
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $1,416,425,661
Education $1,399,862,870
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $1,310,021,801
Telecom Services $1,271,840,866
Securities & Investment $1,264,774,284
Civil Servants/Public Officials $1,216,181,432
Real Estate $1,215,135,758
Health Professionals $1,189,983,794
Air Transport $1,125,384,003
Misc Issues $929,225,311
Automotive $891,793,138
Defense Aerospace $887,354,553
Health Services/HMOs $863,410,051
TV/Movies/Music $851,379,595


money.cnn.com...
Big winner from Obamacare ruling: Health care stocks


Health care stocks surged on the news. Hospitals were the biggest winners. Tenet Healthcare (THC) jumped over 12%, making it the top gaining stock of the day. The company runs 80 hospitals in the U.S. and over 400 outpatient facilities.
HCA Holdings (HCA), which runs 165 hospitals, soared 8.8%, and Universal Health Services (UHS), which has 235 centers, popped over 7.5%.


Other winners: Outside of hospitals, the stocks of insurers like UnitedHealth (UNH) rallied over 2%. estors welcomed the news that the individual insurance market will remain intact.
Health insurers Humana (HUM) and Aetna (AET) soared even more on talk that Aetna is seeking to acquire its rival. Humana stock ended the day over 7% higher.


The solution is to get Big Business out of our Government.
Rather than keep Government out of their Business, Business has been running to government to see what the Government can do for them.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: Edumakated

You're wrong about why healthcare costs so much. Well, partially wrong. The biggest reason healthcare costs so much, is because so few of the costs have any basis in reality. You aren't charged based on what it costs to provide the service, but instead you are charged prices based on "what the market will bear". In other words, they totally make up a price completely based on what they think they can get people or agencies to pay. Nothing will change in healthcare until this practice stops.


Exactly.
When it comes to unique products with no competition, they charge whatever they can get away with. No savings passed onto the consumer in this case.

time.com...
Apple’s $649 iPhone 6 Reportedly Costs $200 to Make

www.forbes.com...
Martin Shkreli Admits He Messed Up: He Should've Raised Prices Even Higher


If anything, the provocative pharmaceutical CEO — who became “the most hated man in America” earlier this year — thinks he didn’t go far enough when he hiked the price of Daraprim by more than 5,000% overnight.


And they want Patents for Protection as well.
The ones in support of these protectionists measures say they need this to recoup the investment costs.
Ok then, when they recoup their costs, everything after that is profits and protectionism, not Free Market Competition Based Capitalism.

And there are WAY to many examples of this happening where they recouped their costs a LONG time ago and are using this protectionism for more profits and to keep the competition at bay.

They can't be in support of Free Market Capitalism and then defend patents after the costs have long since been collected.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: deadlyhope


Social security should be tossed too. Employers should not have to worry about YOUR retirement either. They were good enough to give your sorry ass a job. You should save and stop spending your money on toys, beer and whores. That way you can retire. If not, where does it end?



Do you actually understand what SS is, and how it even works?

SS is taken out of a person's wages by their employers, not added to their wages. The employer only makes sure the money being taken out goes to the SS program, that is being bankrupted by corrupt politicians for things other than retirement.

People pay into this their entire lives, so that they have a small monthly income each month when they reach the age of retirement, so these aren't hand-outs.

And your personal attack on the ATS member is tasteless and uncalled for.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Step 1 - get a job

Step 2 - buy healthcare



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

I didnt attack anyone. Please list WHO I attacked.

Also, sarcasm escapes you.



posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

You should write a thread on healthcare in particular, in my opinion. It's quite a heated debate this political season, and I think your insights might at the very least pique someones interest.



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   
A lot of good points have been made here; however, some of them are still based on wrong information and anger over the manner in which healthcare reform was rolled out and "premium stabilization" (for some an oxymoron), especially in low cost states that have never been community rated (same cost for all within same plan, with a few exceptions such as tobacco use etc.).

Let me first say that I'm not just blowing smoke up anyone's trousers. I was a corporate benefits broker for over 25 years in NYC, and was part of an independent think tank formed in the states of NY, NJ and CT to review and post comments to HHS about various provisions of the law. We were not elected by any government or insurance agency (including big pharma). We were each elected by business clients, ranging from factory-based businesses of 55 employees to Fortune 500 companies. 22 of us were elected and I didn't even know about the think tank until I received an acceptance letter. When the law originally came out, as revised and ratified by both congress and the senate, it was just shy of 800 pages. With the accompanying attached interpretations, it was just shy of 1,500 pages. Since its inception, there have been enough revisions, delays, interim rules, more interim rules, final rules and revised final rules to make an experienced professional's head spin. In addition, we're all expected to keep up with the IRS regs as well. Luckily, I am retired now and don't have to deal with this on a daily basis; however, I've kept up on all the changes, challenges and lawsuits that have occurred since that time.

With that being said, without even thoroughly reading through all those pages, it was obvious to the entire panel within the first hour that this law would never work because it was missing one key element - there was nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that dealt with curbing the exponential rise in medical expenses (i.e. New Hep C medication which is available in US for somewhere in the $95K range, yet available in certain European countries for around $1,000). You can't possibly expect to establish plan(s) appropriately priced in all areas based on reasonable medical costs, without stemming the ongoing rise of medical costs. As a consequence, those states already community rated for years based on empirical data (such as the NY tri-state area), saw very little change in rates (keep in mind that the cheapest individual policy for single HMO coverage at that time was nearly $1,200), whereas those areas such as states in mid-America saw a wild rises in premiums, intended to defray the hardship of providing all essential coverages (many of which people didn't feel they needed) stipulated in the new law.

One last thing I want to say is that the insurance companies did not write this law and probably was one of the most ardent lobbyists against it. The basic principal of insurance is predictable risk. When the new plans became mandatory, the insurance companies panicked for the same reasons outlined above. Without control on the continuous rising cost of medical care, there was no way to calculated predicted risk.

I end this by saying that I am no fan of insurance companies, but we shouldn't shut our eyes to what's happened. The smaller companies, for the most part, have closed their doors, and if all goes through the judiciary and anti-trust challenges as desired, we're basically left with three monopolies to chose from. It doesn't take a genius to realize that 20 companies to choose from is better than three (Anthem/CIGNA, Aetna/Humana and UnitedHealthcare).



posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: timidgal

Thank you for that informative post.

I did not have insurance at the time this law was being passed. I did not like it and was hoping for Medicare for all. One of the reasons they said the costs would go down was the competition. The exchange I went to had several different plans, but not much difference between them. And, have the insurance companies lost their values on the market?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join