How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>You can not come up with one example where a gov runs
>something better than the private sector.

The Center for Disease Control.
NASA.
Air Traffic Control.
The Federal Reserve.

There are no private sector comparisons which can be made here.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>You can not come up with one example where a gov runs
>something better than the private sector.

The Center for Disease Control.
NASA.
Air Traffic Control.
The Federal Reserve.

There are no private sector comparisons which can be made here.

Every nation where ATC has been privatized, it has become less efficient and more burdensome.
Funny that all the rich folks with private jets are fighting tooth and nail to keep ATC under government control in the USA - I guess the jetsetters are all socialists.

There's no reason (I know of) why a private organization cannot set up in competition with the CDC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You can not come up with one example where a gov runs
>something better than the private sector.

The Center for Disease Control.
NASA.
Air Traffic Control.
The Federal Reserve.

They may run em, but they will never be as good as a private company IMO

I am surpried you bring up ATC? Where there are private contractors is seems to run smoother. Nothing can overcome a system upgrade that is what, 13 years over due?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

There's no reason (I know of) why a private organization cannot set up in competition with the CDC.

Certain things belong in the realm of government, inefficient as they are.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 2,991]

>There are no private sector comparisons which can be made here.

?? The Fed was created because private banks were refusing to renew loans and causing financial panics. The Fed, as a central federal bank with a charter to provide regulation of currency, was able to provide a hedge against the sort of bank panics the country was seeing. Indeed, the panic of 1907 led to the creation of the National Monetary Commission, a study group that went to Europe and studied what they did over there.

Their conclusion - for this particular task, a federal bank did a much better job than separate private banks. The Fed was created in 1913 based on those conclusions.

A private company could certainly do what the CDC does. But there is no financial incentive, and thus a federally funded organization was set up to ensure public health (initially to control malaria.) In addition, since CDC decisions directly affect the lives of americans, it would be inappropriate for a private company to run such an organization; the collective health of the US should not be traded off against profit. Thus another example of the government operating a function better than a private company could.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You can not come up with one example where a gov runs
>something better than the private sector.

The Center for Disease Control.
NASA.
Air Traffic Control.
The Federal Reserve.

There are no private sector comparisons which can be made here.

Every nation where ATC has been privatized, it has become less efficient and more burdensome.
Funny that all the rich folks with private jets are fighting tooth and nail to keep ATC under government control in the USA - I guess the jetsetters are all socialists.

There's no reason (I know of) why a private organization cannot set up in competition with the CDC.

Probably has more to do with who is paying for it than effiency

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>but they will never be as good as a private company IMO

See above. The Fed was created because the private companies they replaced were screwing things up.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>There are no private sector comparisons which can be made here.

?? The Fed was created because private banks were refusing to renew loans and causing financial panics. The Fed, as a central federal bank with a charter to provide regulation of currency, was able to provide a hedge against the sort of bank panics the country was seeing. Indeed, the panic of 1907 led to the creation of the National Monetary Commission, a study group that went to Europe and studied what they did over there.

Their conclusion - for this particular task, a federal bank did a much better job than separate private banks. The Fed was created in 1913 based on those conclusions.

A private company could certainly do what the CDC does. But there is no financial incentive, and thus a federally funded organization was set up to ensure public health (initially to control malaria.) In addition, since CDC decisions directly affect the lives of americans, it would be inappropriate for a private company to run such an organization; the collective health of the US should not be traded off against profit. Thus another example of the government operating a function better than a private company could.

Understood, but what I meant was that there are no side by side comparisons to make in order to rank efficiency. Anyway, I say again that there are entities better off in the hands of the gov -- CDC and the Fed for the reasons you wrote out.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 2,991]

>Anyway, I say again that there are entities better off in the hands of the gov . . .

I agree there.

I think people get too caught up on the "system du jour" whether it be socialism, or capitalism, or government control, or anarchy, or whatever. One of the reasons our system works reasonably well is that in general the US is NOT dogmatic about such things, and is willing to go to a system that works better if called for.

Ecomomy? Mostly capitalist. Controlled (to some degree) by a federal bank.

Police? Socialist. Government pays for them and sets operational rules.

National parks? Communist. "Everyone owns them." Federal government ensures access.

Health care? Currently capitalist and "hidden socialist." A lot of people get free medical care through government programs and by (basically) lying. It's worthwhile discussing how to change it, but going to a partly socialist system is not really a change - it's what we have now.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

It's worthwhile discussing how to change it, but going to a partly socialist system is not really a change - it's what we have now.

great commentary. If either the left or right wing had their way 100% in this country, we'd be in trouble. The tug-o-war keeps us locked somewhere in between.

. . =(_8^(1)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>but they will never be as good as a private company IMO

See above. The Fed was created because the private companies they replaced were screwing things up.

I just read that. That is something I did not know. I does appear this is a good task for the feds

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

I do believe that the WHO report is a good source as it's not biased towards any country.....and since they are backed by a lot of countries that gives them a lot of credit.

If you do find anything that proves there are issues with the report of the WHO themselves I would be very interested in reading it. I'm definitely not trying to be one sided on any of this......I'm more than open to any materials that proves something else.

I'm making slow progress in analyzing the report.


I don't think that WHO is biased toward any particular country, or even a group of countries, but digging after through their report, I have no doubt at all that they are very biased toward a certain healthcare model.

What have you found out about that? What kind of system? Does it work better?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

What model/type is it biased toward?

I use the term "socialist", which may or may not be strictly true, but WHO believes that a system entirely controlled by the federal government and funded by taxes is the only viable model. Everybody pays their "fair" share, and everybody gets equal and probably far superior care.

Doesn't sound bad.....sounds like a good idea if it can be run correctly.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What model/type is it biased toward?

I use the term "socialist", which may or may not be strictly true, but WHO believes that a system entirely controlled by the federal government and funded by taxes is the only viable model. Everybody pays their "fair" share, and everybody gets equal and probably far superior care.

Doesn't sound bad.....sounds like a good idea if it can be run correctly.

Not to me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What model/type is it biased toward?

I use the term "socialist", which may or may not be strictly true, but WHO believes that a system entirely controlled by the federal government and funded by taxes is the only viable model. Everybody pays their "fair" share, and everybody gets equal and probably far superior care.

Doesn't sound bad.....sounds like a good idea if it can be run correctly.

Not to me

What exactly sounds bad about everybody getting equal and probably far superior care?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You can not come up with one example where a gov runs
>something better than the private sector.

The Center for Disease Control.
NASA.
Air Traffic Control.
The Federal Reserve.

There are no private sector comparisons which can be made here.

Every nation where ATC has been privatized, it has become less efficient and more burdensome.
Funny that all the rich folks with private jets are fighting tooth and nail to keep ATC under government control in the USA - I guess the jetsetters are all socialists.

There's no reason (I know of) why a private organization cannot set up in competition with the CDC.

Probably has more to do with who is paying for it than effiency

Your opinion is not in line with the facts.

You need to pay more attention to aviation matters IF you are a skydiver.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You can not come up with one example where a gov runs
>something better than the private sector.

The Center for Disease Control.
NASA.
Air Traffic Control.
The Federal Reserve.

There are no private sector comparisons which can be made here.

Every nation where ATC has been privatized, it has become less efficient and more burdensome.
Funny that all the rich folks with private jets are fighting tooth and nail to keep ATC under government control in the USA - I guess the jetsetters are all socialists.

There's no reason (I know of) why a private organization cannot set up in competition with the CDC.

Probably has more to do with who is paying for it than effiency

Your opinion is not in line with the facts.

You need to pay more attention to aviation matters IF you are a skydiver.

Ah, how do you I have not??? How many opinions have you expressed to the FAA and congress concerning the new bills being considered?

Guess I cant have an opinion if it not in lines with yours

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>

Health care? Currently capitalist and "hidden socialist." A lot of people get free medical care through government programs and by (basically) lying. It's worthwhile discussing how to change it, but going to a partly socialist system is not really a change - it's what we have now.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a mixed system. In fact it is potentially the most likely to satisfy the greatest number.

However, the system we have in the US was not designed as a mixed system. It is just an ad-hoc mismatched patchwork of private, state and federal bits tacked together with no thought as to the system as a whole. Rather like Boris Karloff's version of Frankenstein's monster.

As a consequence it almost represents the worst possible outcome with respect to service vs. cost.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Rather like Boris Karloff's version of Frankenstein's monster.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do you have any experience in Spain´s Helth System?

No,. but my wife does -having lived in Madrid for two years. She said that like any system, it's got its good and its bad. Some of what the US doesn't do well it does well. Some of what the US does well it does not do well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

Quote

However, the system we have in the US was not designed as a mixed system. It is just an ad-hoc mismatched patchwork of private, state and federal bits tacked together with no thought as to the system as a whole. Rather like Boris Karloff's version of Frankenstein's monster.

Very true. It did, however start out as a free-market system with minimal government interference.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Ah, how do you I have not???

A very interesting example of garbled syntax. Representative of your thought process?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

However, the system we have in the US was not designed as a mixed system. It is just an ad-hoc mismatched patchwork of private, state and federal bits tacked together with no thought as to the system as a whole. Rather like Boris Karloff's version of Frankenstein's monster.

Very true. It did, however start out as a free-market system with minimal government interference.

Part of the high cost also comes states saying what will and will not be in a given health care system.

Example, some states require lasik be provided for and others force employers to cover plastic surgery.

(these are examples because at the moment I can not remember the most ridicules procedures they forced coverage on)

In any event, state to state varies so much that no insurance company can have a standard program.

Not the biggest reason but an impact none the same

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ah, how do you I have not???

A very interesting example of garbled syntax. Representative of your thought process?

At least my though process does not include being a dick

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 2005 we spent 43% of our budget (some reports claim up to 51%) on the military, we're number one on the list....look at the pic. We could, notice I said could, get some money there. A lot of money disappears there to nowhere....but that's another issue.

Yes, it disappears into socialism. The US Military Budget for 2007 is almost $505 billion, down by over $5 billion from the 2006 Budget of a little over $512 billion.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/...f/budget/defense.pdf

The US Health and Human Services Budget for 2007 is $697.95 billion, up from $639.66 billion in 2006. Of this, $627,315 billion is for mandatory outlays (Medicare $389.5 billion and Medicaid $204.69 billion). http://www.gpoaccess.gov/...7/pdf/budget/hhs.pdf

So, in weighing the amount of money the government spends on the military versus healthcare, we see that health care spending gets 136% of the money that the military gets.

You forgot some stuff, like the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons program, the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “other items” (i.e. military spending by other agencies, foreign military financing and training, mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare). Here's the real numbers....

Year......$ of.....At 2007..Change from
...........Billions...Prices....Previous Year (%)
------------------------------------------
2008....643.9....643.9......2.84%
2007....626.1....626.1......7.46%
2006....571.6....582.66...-0.05%
2005....554.......582.93....0.34%
2004....534.......580.93....4.03%
2003....500.......558.42...27.97%
2002....382.......436.36.....8.00%
2001....348.......404.03.....4.82%
2000....323.......385.46.....0.81%
1999....310.......382.38.....4.95%
1998....289.......364.35..... n/a


Sources:
For data up to 2005, Chris Hellman, The Runaway Military Budget: An Analysis , Friends Committee on National Legislation, March 2006, no. 705, p. 3
For 2006, 41% of Your 2006 [US] Taxes go to War, Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 15, 2007
For 2007 and 2008, Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2007 Pentagon Spending Request and Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2008 Pentagon Spending Request, both from the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation.

Notes:
1998-2006 includes Department of Defense spending, Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons program, the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “other items” (i.e. military spending by other agencies, foreign military financing and training, mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare).
2007 and 2008 do not include “other items.”
Congress has already approved over $500 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fiscal Year 2008’s budget request includes a supplemental $141.7 billion to cover Iraq and Afghanistan operations. 2007’s was $93.4 billion. (See Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation source mentioned above.)
2007 constant prices calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Consumer Price Index Calculator

So, in looking at the data, did you realize that the 2007 numbers defense numbers are STILL lower that the Health & Human Services Budget? Do you also realize that the HHS budget is just the FEDERAL side of things? If you add the states and counties into it, odds are that governmental health care spending would approach 1 trillion dollars. So the problem is not a lack of socialism.

Quote

Quote

Second, by getting rid of the insurance companies you eliminate price inflation. But you're not eliminating jobs because the government would still need the staffing to deal with paperwork. Doctors know they're going to get paid regardless, therefore they wont need all the extra staff for paperwork and the government can create a price list for procedures...no price gouging that way.

Um, are you sniffing something? Price inflation exists in areas that are uninsured. You've said that the staff would go into paperwork for the government, then say that the doctors won't need staff for all the paperwork. Huh??? That's a contradiction.

Not really.....think of how weapons are purchased. The old military comfort "be glad in knowing that the equipment you are using to protect yourself is made by the lowest bidder". Or simply instate and government list of prices for each procedure that is updated yearly by a committee of doctors and budget officials. That would eliminate prie gouging.

That's called a "trust" or a "monopoly." Where one group chooses the price of something because there is no competition. Guess what happens when somebody is told, "You'll get paid what we TELL you you will get paid? And you'll get paid no more." It creates a disincentive to do it and it creates a black market.

Quote

Quote

Third, restrict malpractice lawsuits to reasonable limits. Since people are covered regardless, the healthcare will not be an issue in the lawsuits....it's just "emotional grief" that they would be suing for or lost wages in the case of a death.

True. The doctor that paralyzed you can treat you for the rest of your life. You can get some pain and suffering, I guess. Gee, thanks for the government medical care.

The sad thing is that these things do happen, but the doctor's do not generally do them on purpose.....that would be a criminal thing. You could still sue, but put some limitations on it. I think the malpractice lawsuits are going a little overboard.

I don't argue against malpractice limits, per se. But the issue becomes where it should be set. That causes problems because they are individual values. Just like this whole discussion.

Quote

Quote

As a society we should be working towards betterment for everybody and not just ourselves.

As a society you have to pick winners and losers. You may say it's for the betterment of everybody, but you KNOW you are choosing some to lose. What's good for me ain't good for everyone else. What's good for everyone else aint' necessarily good for you.

You know it. I know it. We all know i. Let's all show some integrity and call it what it is - a system for picking losers by caprice.

Is it better if everybody has good healthcare? Yes.

"Better" for whom? What is "good" healtchare?

That would be one step forward for our society. It's not about choosing a loser or a winner. Yes it is. It'll destroy private medical practice. They'll lose.

Some make more than other and some make lots and other make none. You can't just think about yourself, you have to think about the group.

Is that said to the lone sheep in a pack of wolves? "Quit thinking about yourself and think about the betterment of the group."

In the eyes of the wolves it's fair to say that the sheep should simply sacrifice itself. "Don't run or put up a fight. Just let us kill you and eat you."

Another way seeing things is that the sheep shouldn't have to submit to the will of the wolves. The sheep has the right to be upset that it is being commanded to bow to the will of the group. Perhaps it will die, but it will put up a fight.

As history demonstrates, the "will of the group" being enforced typically leads to the destruction of dissent. Castro did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it. Pol Pot did it.

What is "good for the group" is ALWAYS "bad for some individuals."

My wife is hotter than your wife.