FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Baron Scicluna · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

YankeeFan said:

Baron Scicluna said:

How do you know for sure if your competitors would lower their price. They might look at your price and decide to match it.
Click to expand...

Baron, I don't think you understand how the world works.

If none of my competitors lowered their price, someone else would come along, and seeing the opportunity, open a new business that would take away all of our business.
Click to expand...

Except if prices are lowered too much, then your business is not profitable. And you're counting on another competitor entering your business. That doesn't always happen.

BTExpress · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Yep. It happens all the time with gas stations.

Oh ...
Click to expand...

Doesn't it?

You don't think the station down the street would love to charge $5.70 a gallon? Everybody needs gas, right? Higher price means more profit! Hooray!

Except the minute he does that, nobody goes to his station. Instead, they flock to the $3.49 station down the corner.

Uncle.Ruckus · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Or the 3.49 station across the street. Or the 3.49 station next to that.

That's my point.

old_tony · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Tarheel316 said:

old_tony said:

Tarheel316 said:

old_tony said:

Tarheel316 said:

old_tony said:

Tarheel316 said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Tarheel316 said:

Are you making fun of Lancey's situation?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think he's making light of the interpretation of Lancey's situation. I am sure he/she is, like me, pleased that Lancey's condition was treatable (rather easily, it seems) and is not a serious cause for immediate and/or long-term concern.

I'll be the first to admit here that the whole pre-existing conditions challenge is a tough nut to crack. At my age I've seen this play out numerous times, and I certainly understand this as a root of dissatisfaction with the current (actually, the on-the-way-out) system. Most recently I had a first cousin whose older (late teens) son was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately for him the cancer was caught early and the surgery/chemo regimen was (apparently) very successful. Unfortunately for him, he'll always have that pre-existing condition, which means that unless he goes to work for: 1) the government; or 2) some big firm, he's going to have both the cancer shadow AND the insurance shadow chasing him. I have serious problems with any system set up that way.

On the other hand, our health care system as it is emerged under a regime of insurance as primary financing mechanism, which means that an alternative approach (i.e., one in which insurance really is insurance, rather than prepaid health care) can't, as a practical, political matter, get a fair hearing. I think this is terribly unfortunate since what evidence there is (and there's not much, but there's some) suggests such a transition would be a very, very positive outcome.
Click to expand...

That's some good analysis. I just don't it's right for people to be bankrupted by medical bills. It's immoral. For starters, fee-for-service has got to go.
Click to expand...

Great. Too bad Obamacare is set up to bankrupt people even before their first medical bill arrives.
Click to expand...

I have said all along that health care costs too much.
Click to expand...

And the solution ObamaCare brings is to also make health insurance cost too much. Great.
Click to expand...

Okay. You got a solution?
Click to expand...

Yup. Tort reform, for one. Also, use insurance as insurance, which means you only use insurance for catastrophic health-care events -- serious illness or injury and the surgeries and further treatments those require. You get a cold and go to the doctor? Out of pocket. Have an ear-ache and go to the doctor? Out of pocket.

Do it that way and a family of five will save a shit-ton of money compared to the $20,000/year premiums ObamaCare has them looking at.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on tort reform but prices still need to come way down to be affordable out of pocket.
Click to expand...

When people start paying out of pocket for basic services, the cost of those basic services will almost immediately come down. Two reasons: Necessity -- doctors, hospitals and clinics will be competing for business much more when people are paying out of pocket; and doctors, hospitals and clinics also won't be able to jack prices simply because insurance companies are no longer who they bill.

Uncle.Ruckus · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Doctors, hospitals and clinics can charge whatever the hell they want, unless the government intervenes. It's a specialized commodity.

Uncle.Ruckus · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

MisterCreosote said:

Someone convince me that those referrals would take place and those items would cost that much if our system was universally pay-as-you-go.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it? Would doctors suddenly want to make less money?

old_tony · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Baron Scicluna said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Baron Scicluna said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Baron Scicluna said:

You do realize insurance companies won't pass along the savings to their customers, right?
Click to expand...

You got anything to back that up other than a general disdain of companies that don't strike your fancy?
Click to expand...

You tell me then. Why would they? They're in business to make money. If they can charge a certain price, why would they accept less?

O_T pointed out that insurance should be used for major health events, not minor ones like colds and earaches. If insurance companies don't cover those, then the patient must. There's no guarantee that prices for the colds and earache visits will come down. If too many people can't afford a $100 visit to the doctor for their cold, they won't go. Then the doctors offices, to make up the loss of income, will charge more for the major visits.

And it's not like many people can shop around for different insurance companies. They take what their employer offers them. So companies don't have a very big incentive to offer lower prices because of competition.
Click to expand...

The argument being made was that health insurance should be insurance, not prepaid health care. BY DEFINITION customers would be buying less coverage. It is axiomatic that health insurance expenditures would decrease. Any savings to be passed on would be completely beyond the purview of insurance companies.

Further, experience has shown that when patients must foot the bill for their care, strangely enough [/bluefont] prices come down. Lasik and bariatric surgery immediately come to mind, but there are many, many more examples.

Finally, this statement of yours is just absolutely ridiculous:

If too many people can't afford a $100 visit to the doctor for their cold, they won't go. Then the doctors offices, to make up the loss of income, will charge more for the major visits.
Click to expand...

If doctors had the competitive flexibility you seem to think they have, there would be no way in hell you could see a doctor for a cold. It'd be major visit or nothing.

In all honesty, I think I'm going to need to put you on ignore. Otherwise I am going to need to see my doctor about my blood pressure.
Click to expand...

Lasik eye surgery? Really? An optional surgery so people don't have to wear eyeglasses or contacts? And here I'm the one who usually gets ripped on for ridiculous examples.

Of course patients pay for Lasik surgery out of their own pocket. It's only done for cosmetic reasons. Bariatric surgery is a relatively new phenomenon, which, while there are medical benefits, there is also a high risk of complications. Which is one reason why insurance companies don't want to pay for it. Plus, they would prefer the patients use less invasive ways to lose weight.

Your DEFINITION also doesn't take into account that, even though people may be buying less coverage, that prices may not go down to match the savings. Like I said earlier, there isn't much competition among companies in the health insurance field. Patients have to choose the plans their companies offer, or pay more to go on their own.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of ridiculous assertions, but this might be the most ridiculous of all.

Lasik eye surgery is not in any way, shape or form a "cosmetic" procedure to "look better." It's done for one reason, and one reason only -- to see better. If you don't consider eye care to be part of health care, there's even less reason to give a rip what you think than the almost-zero there was before.

Uncle.Ruckus · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

It's an optional form of eye care. It's like complaining your insurance wouldn't pay for diamond-studded braces.

old_tony · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Baron Scicluna said:

BenPoquette said:

Baron Scicluna said:

BenPoquette said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Baron Scicluna said:

GeorgeFHayek said:

Baron Scicluna said:

You do realize insurance companies won't pass along the savings to their customers, right?
Click to expand...

You got anything to back that up other than a general disdain of companies that don't strike your fancy?
Click to expand...

You tell me then. Why would they? They're in business to make money. If they can charge a certain price, why would they accept less?

O_T pointed out that insurance should be used for major health events, not minor ones like colds and earaches. If insurance companies don't cover those, then the patient must. There's no guarantee that prices for the colds and earache visits will come down. If too many people can't afford a $100 visit to the doctor for their cold, they won't go. Then the doctors offices, to make up the loss of income, will charge more for the major visits.

And it's not like many people can shop around for different insurance companies. They take what their employer offers them. So companies don't have a very big incentive to offer lower prices because of competition.
Click to expand...

The argument being made was that health insurance should be insurance, not prepaid health care. BY DEFINITION customers would be buying less coverage. It is axiomatic that health insurance expenditures would decrease. Any savings to be passed on would be completely beyond the purview of insurance companies.

Further, experience has shown that when patients must foot the bill for their care, strangely enough [/bluefont] prices come down. Lasik and bariatric surgery immediately come to mind, but there are many, many more examples.

Finally, this statement of yours is just absolutely ridiculous:

If too many people can't afford a $100 visit to the doctor for their cold, they won't go. Then the doctors offices, to make up the loss of income, will charge more for the major visits.
Click to expand...

If doctors had the competitive flexibility you seem to think they have, there would be no way in hell you could see a doctor for a cold. It'd be major visit or nothing.

In all honesty, I think I'm going to need to put you on ignore. Otherwise I am going to need to see my doctor about my blood pressure.
Click to expand...

I have to get a minor hip surgery. My doctor just told me Cigna, my health insurance provider, will not cover the procedure because Cigna deems it "experimental." I have had this procedure done in the facet joints in my back and it was covered, but not for the hip. The invoice for the procedure on my back, when I looked into it, was $2,600. I told my doctor I was going to have to pass because I couldn't afford $2,600 at this time.

He looked at me like I was nuts. He then told me they give a "discount" for cash payment or for self-payers. How much? He then told me the cash price for the procedure would be roughly $750. Same procedure they charge the insurance company $2,600 for they would do for $750.

Two things here. First, I do think if we paid as we went with doctors the cost curve would bend very far down. If they do not have to go through all the paperwork and red tape to get things covered they would make care less expensive. Second, how the hell can he get away with this? A "discount" of almost two grand? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, our health care system is screwed up...but the answer is NOT adding more government involvement. I am a conservative Republican who understands we either have to go completely market-based or completely single-payer. If we go market-based we need tort reform and the other ideas some of the Republicans were talking about (across state lines, for instance).

However, if we end up with single-payer there are ways to make it work. Instead of crying "socialism" and barking at the moon, maybe the Republicans could get involved in developing a rational, decent compromise. I know it's hard to do that without a seat at the table, but Obama does not have to worry about re-election anymore. He has a legacy to be concerned with and maybe, just maybe, everyone can work together to figure this problem out.

If the Republicans are so afraid of Obamacare, which I think they should be, start throwing out solutions with specificity instead of just tossing around platitudes. I think they might be surprised to find out people actually will listen to them.
Click to expand...

How much would it have cost you out of pocket if your insurance company had covered it?
Click to expand...

$10 co-pay
Click to expand...

Which is my point. Instead of just being out $10, you'd be out $750.

Apply that to ordinary doctor's visits. Visits to my primary care doctor costs something like $150 with the insurance, with a $20 co-pay. Take away that insurance, and odds are, I'd be paying more than $20. Maybe not $150, but I'd think it'd be more than $20.

After all, YF said he charged something like $50 or $75 just to walk in the door to fix his coffee machines, plus any other expenses and labor. I'd think that a doctor would be charging even more for his time, plus for the costs of maintaining an office and staff.
Click to expand...

Of course, his annual health insurance premium is also thousands more than it should (and would) be.

old_tony · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Uncle.Ruckus said:

It's an optional form of eye care. It's like complaining your insurance wouldn't pay for diamond-studded braces.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter bullshit. But I expect nothing less.

Uncle.Ruckus · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

MisterCreosote said:

Uncle.Ruckus said:

MisterCreosote said:

Someone convince me that those referrals would take place and those items would cost that much if our system was universally pay-as-you-go.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it? Would doctors suddenly want to make less money?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay $240 for a knee brace because that's ridiculous. I wouldn't pay $150 for crutches because that's equally ridiculous. I didn't pay those prices even when my insurance would pay the bulk of it. Because it's ... ridiculous.

I really don't think I'm alone on this one.

And, if people aren't paying what you're charging, even for things they ostensibly NEED, prices go down.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay $40,000 for heart surgery, because that's ridiculous.

I wouldn't pay $100,000 for NICU care for my premature child, because that's ridiculous.

Medicine is even a more specialized commodity than oil. You still have other transportation options. What the fuck are you going to do if you have cancer?

Uncle.Ruckus · Feb 7, 2013

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

old_tony said:

Uncle.Ruckus said:

It's an optional form of eye care. It's like complaining your insurance wouldn't pay for diamond-studded braces.
Click to expand...

Complete and utter bullshit. But I expect nothing less.
Click to expand...

Well, you managed complete sentences. So it was more than I expected from you.

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

BTExpress Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

old_tony Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

old_tony Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

old_tony Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

BTExpress Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

old_tony Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

old_tony Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

old_tony Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Uncle.Ruckus Guest

Share This Page

Useful Searches