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.

 

You Have No Idea What Health Care Costs

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

You Have No Idea What Health Care Costs


www.washingtonpost.com

We pay more than we recognize for health care. Employers pay some, and so do individuals, and taxpayers. Some even hides behind the deficit. Few of us see the full picture.

To make sense of the proposals for reform, getting a grasp of the cost is critical.

The average health-care coverage costs $13,375.

The surest way to cut health-care spending would be to make people shoulder more of the burden directly, as opposed to hiding it in taxes and lost wages.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
newsweek.washingtonpost.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Democrats stifle Republican health care plans
Cracks in the Obamacare Facade: One-third of "Uninsured Americans" Disappear in One Day!




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Almost everyone sees control of health care costs as a matter of corporate/insurance regulation or government intervention. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hear a lie long enough and it begins to sound like the truth.

We are deluding ourselves, or we are being lied to!

Why do we believe that others have to be in charge of one of, if not the, most important factors in our lives?

There was a time, not too long ago, when people had a personal relationship with their health care providers. It was a one-on-one transaction.

We got lazy and decided to let insurance companies take care of the "details," and soon the "details" began to include the provider, service and costs. Then we decided that government bureaucrats could do it better or cheaper.

What were we thinking? [palm slaps forehead]

We gave up control willingly or blindly. But it was given up.

Now, all of a sudden, it's the "greedy insurance companies'" fault, or "big government's" fault.

"We have seen the enemy and it is us."

Just as people say we should take back our country, it is just as imperative that we take back our health care!



www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 19-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
So to recap:

If we pay for more of our share of health care costs, these costs will go down,

and

If we let the government give health care to everyone, we will be losing some of our freedom?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by suicydking
 
Not really. We'll be paying more under the gov't plans and have less freedom.

I you would read the article, instead of trolling, then you'd be able to post a meaningful reply.

Try reading more than the "snippet" if you want to contribute.

jw



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Hrmmm I got a completely different take on this article than you.

How do we lose freedoms?

I just don't see it. I feel more free than I did 10 years ago... because now there are many more progressives among us.

I have a HunkaHunch that 10 years from now the number of progressives will be even higher and I'll feel even more free.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
deleted, wrong thread. . .

sorry

[edit on 19-9-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 

How do we lose freedoms?


Less of our own earnings to keep?
Less control over basic healthcare decisions?
Less choice of how we spend our earnings?
Less choice of our primary care providers?
Less control over the services provided?
Less control over the cost of services?

That's just off the top of my head.

I think the article elaborates well on the financial trade offs we face when we let Congress, some agency, bureaucrats, underwriters and adjusters make healthcare decisions for us:


About 160 million Americans receive health coverage through their employers. In general, the employer picks up 73 percent of the tab. This seems like a good deal. In reality, that money comes out of wages.

Another 80 million Americans are on public plans, mainly Medicare and Medicaid. Those costs are paid by taxpayers. And about 46 million Americans are uninsured. The costs for their care are shifted to the insured: This raises premiums for the average family by $1,100 each year

That's the dilemma for Washington wonks trying to fix this mess: They look at the numbers and see health-care costs crushing our economy, overwhelming our government, swallowing our wages.

But the public isn't feeling it. Virtually no one cuts a $13,375 check for health care. Most pay 27 percent of it, or even less. The surest way to cut health-care spending would be to make people shoulder more of the burden directly, as opposed to hiding it in taxes and lost wages. But that's about as popular as a puppy pot roast.


The personal costs are in the choices we give up in return for the financial "assistance."

jw

[edit on 19-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I read it, and I still don't understand how shifting the burden to the recipient would cut costs. In order for that to happen, the insured would need bargaining power. Against health insurance companies who are spending millions per day on lobbying, what chance do we have?

As far as the public option goes, the proposed option is a self-sufficient program. Simple math tells us that the more people who enroll, the less costly the coverage will be.

The article seems to imply that reform, public option, and all other solutions that have been discussed are red herrings, and the only way to reduce costs is to shift the burden to the insured. I still don't understand how this is going to solve anything.

Most Western European nations with nationalized health care pay about half per capita than the US does, for an equal level of care or better.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 

How do we lose freedoms?


Less of our own earnings to keep?



We have that now... you have to pay for healthcare one way or another... question is, does profit become part of the equation? If so, how much and what's the negative consequences on humanity because of it.



Less control over basic healthcare decisions?



I can only go to certain doctors now, and if I can't afford a treatment I'm S.O.L so How does a Public option reduce what is already reduced?



Less choice of how we spend our earnings?



Oh you mean like if you own a car you MUST have car insurance?



Less choice of our primary care providers?



As I mentioned before, I don't have much choice now.



Less control over the services provided?



As I mentioned above, I don't have much control over that at all right now.



Less control over the cost of services?



No I think the gov has planned cost control mechanisms for healthcare.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by suicydking
 
What you are missing is that government and insurance do not have to compete with the individual citizen!

You have accepted that insurance or government are the ONLY solutions. They are not.

Their rightful place is as a "backstop" against unforseen and catastrophic expenses. If doctors and clinics had to compete for customers, prices for basic care would drop.

Look at the neighborhood clinics and pharmacies around you who offer "screenings," tests and other services for much less than what your doctor bills insurance or the government for.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Come on, really? the reason we have insurance is because we were lazy and wanted someone else to help us with it all? Get real. Insurance was created because some greedy people wanted to find a way to divert all that money going to healthcare to go into their pockets as a middle man instead. Further, people here can NO LONGER afford to pay their own healthcare because we are not just paying for healthcare. We are paying for frivolous lawsuits, we are paying for processing personel, we are paying for pharma managers multi million bonuses and the massive profit of extortionist systems.

Yeah, back in the day a patient had a 1 on 1 relationship with a doctor.... and could pay for a broken arm or leg with a goat or a basket of fruit and vegetables. Now it will cost several months worth of salary, working 8 hours a day to pay for that same broken leg, and thats just a basic type injury that most will get at some point in their lives..... I live in New Orleans, cancer capital of the country, and the majority of people living here will get cancer. Only a millionaire could truly foot the costs of being treated for cancer themselves.

So lets stop being rediculous here and act like people can pay for their own treatment, when its not a "treatment" you are paying for each time you go to the doctor.....your paying for a system, a system run for profit, managed by greed, and approved by your congressmen who get millions in kickbacks and bribes from said system.
Its not a question of individuals responsibility, its a question of our societies responsibility, and as a society we are completely foregoing that responsibility to regulate the greed and corruption the corporations are allowed to get away with, and then we blame the poor guy at the bottom for the system we allow to abuse him.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 
You should probably change your "tag line:" "Be your own God."

You seem to be in favor of giving insurance companies and government more and more of our money and control of our lives. No one can "be your own God" if they're willing to let someone else be in charge.

Most people that NEITHER government nor insurance has to be in charge of their healthcare.

People scream about "profit" and bonuses, but expect to "profit" for their 40 hours, and maybe even get a bonus at Christmas. Shouldn't doctors and nurses get paid? Clinincs?

The alternative to "profit" is to work for nothing and have everything you "need" determined for you by a bureaucrat.

A lot of people use the mandatory auto coverage as an example of how "mandatory healthcare" can work. Do you seriously contend that EVERYONE on the road has insurance? Did you know that there are more unlicensed or uninsured drivers in CA than there are people with insurance? Look at insurance numbers versus auto numbers.

"Mandatory" anything doesn't work, unless you are a sheep and believe and do what you are told.

If you don't have the choices I've described for you, it's because you've given them up. It was not always like this. It doesn't always have to be so.

And as for "government planned cost control mechanisms," like what they use for the Government programs that now take most of our annual budget? Even the budget itself, supposedly "pay as you go," is out of control.

Insurance reform is not the answer.
Government is not the answer.

It's amazing that so many people are willing to give up independence and personal, even collective, responsibility for basic decisions. Everyone seems to believe that everyone else or the government "owes" them and that what they get is "free."

How sad.

jw



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Our government DOES owe us something....because we pay TAXES!! Its not about getting something for free, its about getting something back from the taxes we pay. Our taxes are supposed to pay for social stabilizing structures, things such as police protection, fire defense, mail, infrastructure, defense, healthcare, education, catastrophe recovery, things without which our society cannot have stability.

Instead it goes to pay for wars for resources, for corporate growth and profit, and for anything else that corporate lobbyists bribe congress to vote for at the taxpayers expense.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Insurance was created because some greedy people wanted to find a way to divert all that money going to healthcare to go into their pockets as a middle man instead.


No, insurance is gambling. It is "risk shifting" from people who want to carry on an activity but don't want to bear the potential costs.


Further, people here can NO LONGER afford to pay their own healthcare because we are not just paying for healthcare. We are paying for frivolous lawsuits, we are paying for processing personel, we are paying for pharma managers multi million bonuses and the massive profit of extortionist systems.


No again. People can afford to pay for their healthcare. They are screwed by the costs of healthcare insurance. You don't see the difference, do you?


its not a "treatment" you are paying for each time you go to the doctor.....your paying for a system, a system run for profit, managed by greed, and approved by your congressmen who get millions in kickbacks and bribes from said system.


Then get rid of the system and take some responsibility.


Its not a question of individuals responsibility, its a question of our societies responsibility, and as a society we are completely foregoing that responsibility to regulate the greed and corruption the corporations are allowed to get away with


You are ignoring that government pretends to be doing just that!
Everyone is quick to say "greedy corporation," but forget that corporations can only do what we, through the government, let them.

Abdicating personal responsibility and control in favor of others is not the answer to anything.

jw

[edit on 19-9-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
What it all boils down to is profit, How much profit should someone be allowed to make in administering health care? If someone saves your life should they be entitled to everything you own?

Let's say we were invaded by an extra terrestrial fog which will kill everyone on earth in 2 months. An employee of the elitist invents the cure. Since they want global depopulation, they decide to charge $10 million a dose. Would those of you who favor no regulation be ok with this? Or do you think a price control should be put into effect so everyone can be saved? Should the goverments of the world force them to sell them the cure at a reasonable price so they can distribute it to the citizens? The answer is pretty obvious.

I know this case is overboard but which life is worth more than the next one? Should it be really determined by how much money one has? Should things that could benefit all society be withheld to pad the pockets of the profiteers? Shouldn't the role of our goverment be to ensure that the mechanisms are in place for all it's citizens to have the best possible life possible given the technolgy and advances available? Wouldn't that include making sure that people get the best healthcare possible at the lowest cost? It doesn't mean that those who make healthcare advances won't be richly rewarded. It just means they won't be rewarded to such a degree that it is harmful to society as a whole.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Actually I am no that old
but I remember when I was a child our doctors used to come to our home when we had needs.

And I also remember when it was public clinics in each town to take care of minor scratches and cuts for free run by the government.

Then the mega hospitals started to sprout everywhere, doctors became an elite and health care was privatized.

Then the littler clinics were closed out and we had to pay to be seen in the hospitals.

Yes life was also a lot easier and simpler, children were born at home and malpractices and insurance were nothing but an idea in the mind of profiteers.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





The average health-care coverage costs $13,375.

The surest way to cut health-care spending would be to make people shoulder more of the burden directly, as opposed to hiding it in taxes and lost wages.




Ya and then I can sleep under a bridge and hunt domestic cats for food.

I have made this very amount in a couple of bad years working a full time job.

And yes I do know the cost, I spend my days inputting medical codes - I see how little the doctors get paid and as opposed to how much the insurance companies "value" the treatments... Who keeps the difference???

gee...



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
'Health care' is actually insanely cheap.

It's the bizarre and mostly inneffective disease 'management' of allopathic medicine that costs an arm and a leg (pun intended ..... or read as literal)

RT



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Jdub, you are really stating the same thing i am and making my points for me, but it looks like your using them as an argument against me. however, i do disagree with your "you dont like it, change it...they are doing what you let them do" mentality. Thats like saying "if you dont like what that 300lb bully is doing to you change it, he is only doing it because you let him". We have little power here and to truly make any change we would have to be willing to sacrifice our freedom, our livelihood, and our meagre possessions in the war to make true change.

But your wrong about the health insurance thing. It was created by kaiser and president...i cant remember which president...but anyway it was specifically made to make as much money as possible while providing as little care as possible...it was a scam when it was created (the HMO) and its a scam now, there to take advantage of those who can least afford it. Much like our banking system!



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


But your wrong about the health insurance thing. It was created by kaiser and president... it was specifically made to make as much money as possible while providing as little care as possible...


Please, ATS, start a basic intelligence test for membership!

Health insurance has been around for almost 150 years. It began for travellers when cross-country, train and steamboat traffic were fraught with danger and people contracted diseases to which they had never been exposed.

The first group insurance was offered by "Non-Profit" groups called "Blue Cross" and "Blue Shield." Some of the largest providers today are the descendants of Blue Cross-Blue Shield, and they are STILL non-profit!

These early plans were created to bring costs DOWN, by allowing health care costs to be spread among large populations of subscribers. When government froze wages during WWII, employers competed for workers by offering health insurance. The government stepped in to make individuals unable to afford health insurance by making the costs deductible for employers, but not for individuals.

The government didn't really get involved in providing health care until it started disability coverage for social security recipients and when it created Medicare/Medicaid in 1965.

Profits, profits, profits. People spout this nonsense as if profits were evil.
Do you work for free? Do you expect to be paid for your services? Then, YOU'RE profiting at others' expense! Shame on you.

I'm not here to defend insurance companies. But to argue that government can do a better job than private industry (not insurance) is ignorant of reality.

Government can't collect taxes fairly, operate railservice efficiently, deliver mail economically, or even regulate banks and insurance companies worth a damn. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are ridden with fraud, overspending and mismanagement. All three programs are bankrupt - they are taking money from other sources to pay for current expenses with no means of repaying it!

If government was serious about "reform," it would let people save their money tax-free to use to buy basic care. I'm not going to repeat myself about the proper place for insurance, government and employers. You should've read it in my posts.


it was a scam when it was created (the HMO) and its a scam now, there to take advantage of those who can least afford it.


No. HMOs were created by the government in reponse to "progressives" who were worried about overutilization of services and rising costs of care and insurance. The government artificially lowered the cost of HMOs through subsidies to further marginalize individual coverage and encourage (force?) employers to move to HMOs, which limited patient choice and eliminated their ability to negotiate directly with providers. (Sound familiar?)


Much like our banking system!

Don't get me started. You have NO IDEA.

jw



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join