How does government increase the costs of healthcare?

Me

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

There are at least 7 major ways, I'm going try to lay this out in an easy to read format.

1. Guaranteed Issue Insurance Regulations

By mandating Guaranteed Issue, any citizen can wait until they actually have a problem(and indeed many do) and then at that point get insurance and get their problem taken care of. And then even cancel if they wish. Ever hear of long term roll over debt?

2. Community Rating

Far too many people seem to think that insurance is there solely for the purpose of pooling risk. This is false. Insurance has a dual purpose. Yes, they pool risk, but the more important part is that they price risk. Community rating deletes many criteria that any insurance companies need in order to accurately price risk.

3. Cadillac healthcare Insurance plans

Where is the price structure? Where is it? It doesn't exist in healthcare, because government won't allow it. Are you a younger person who(naturally) has better health, and you only want to get catastrophic coverage? You aren't allowed. All plans are the same, partially because of #2.

4. Illegal aliens on the dole.

Illegal aliens clearly don't have an ability to pay. But yet many come to our nation, have something that needs to be fixed, and end up swamping the healthcare system. The cost of what they needed fixed doesn't just go away, it rolls over and gets absorbed into the system for someone else to pay a piece of. Long term leveraged roll over debt.

5. Letting Government(and/or medicare) "negotiate" prices.

Government doesn't negotiate. It threatens. It puts price controls in place. So if (x bottle of pills) costs 100 dollars and government comes around and says "we'll pay you 50 cents on the dollar for that bottle and if you refuse we'll investigate your business out of existance", that money doesn't just go away.

For people on private insurances, your 100 dollar of (x pills) just went up to 1.50 on the dollar. Now you are paying $150 for $100 dollars worth of product.

This is dirty. This is dangerous. This is government "price shifting" or "cost shifting". And then once government has shifted costs onto private entities, then can turn around and blame the markets for being way too greedy and pat themselves on the back for offering you a lower cost solution.

6. Red tape and bureaucracy. Government is wasteful. That isn't a secret. Just as they overpay for cappuccino machines(and of course the infamous 600 dollar toilet seats) and siphon off billions of dollars for pet projects in other areas, they do the same in healthcare. That's why medicare is currently already in the hole for 30 trillion dollars.

7. "If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free". If you think that's just some slogan, think again. It's historically known that if you offer something for free, demand becomes unlimited. Yet supply can never also become unlimited. So predictably, the prices skyrocket.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

If there's anything I've missed, hit the reply button.

[Big_Monkey]

"5. Letting Government(and/or medicare) "negotiate" prices.

I might have a problem with this one. If government is going to pick up the tab for some or all medical expenses, I can't see the harm in negotiating the best price possible. You use the term "threaten". I suspect if you spoke to Walmart suppliers they too might use that same term. I'd call hard nose negotiating.

When the drug company lobby successfully removed this provision from the latest AARP giveaway bill masquerading as the "Seniors Prescription Drug Plan", it essentially assured that the US Taxpayer underwrite the drug supply for the whole world. Because, you can be sure that American Pharma IS negotiating with the the western world socialized health care system.

I don't think it's a conservative principle to tie the hands of government and keep them from driving their costs down.

[steelyourfaith]

Code Blue: Health Care In Crisis by Edward R. Annis, M.D., former President of the American Medical Association, is a good related read. It chronicles the early government meddling that led to the current deconstruction of the best health-care system in the world. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

[gpk9]

You’re not even close.

Every point you made is about paying the cost of healthcare.

Actually it’s “healthcare” in quotes, because it only appears to be healthcare.

“Healthcare” itself is the problem. The problem is, it isn’t healthcare. Not even close.

The “healthcare” system doesn’t care about health. It cares about making money. Maybe not every individual practitioner. I’m sure there is a solitary practitioner here and there who really does care about people’s health. I’m talking about the system as a whole. Everything from pre-med forward is about making money. None of it is about health.

Even those rare practitioners who do care about people’s health are likely to be ineffective because they have had the mainstream medical training that is centered around making money.

It’s not even about illness. Even after a hundred years or so in it’s present form, “healthcare”, or medicine, the correct term, is nowhere closer to understanding illness and it’s causes.

The whole system is about identifying and treating symptoms. It always has been that way, and is likely to continue that way for the foreseeable future.

Every name they coin is for a set of symptoms. Every treatment they come up with is to chase a set of symptoms. Every drug they come up with is to chase a set of symptoms.

Why? Because that’s where the money is. The real money. The big money. That’s why “healthcare” is so expensive.

It’s a beautiful system for making money. One of the best I’ve ever seen.

Treatments and drugs used to chase one set of symptoms merely change the nature of those symptoms.

That starts the whole process over again. Other treatments and drugs to chase the new set of symptoms, which merely changes the nature of those symptoms.

That starts the whole process over again. Other treatments and drugs to chase the new set of symptoms, which merely changes the nature of those symptoms.

That starts the whole process over again. Other treatments and drugs to chase the new set of symptoms, which merely changes the nature of those symptoms.

You get the point.

That’s why “healthcare” doesn’t do what the name implies. “Healthcare” is a failure at illness. Total failure. Absolute failure. “Healthcare” is a failure at health. Total failure. Absolute failure.

Because it’s not about illness. Not even close. And it’s certainly not about health. Not even close.

It’s all about identifying, labeling, and treating symptoms. That’s where the money is.

The same thing is going on in this economic and financial crisis. The very same thing. Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, and now Obama, are merely chasing symptoms while understanding little or nothing about the illness and it’s true causes.

They’re doing the identical same thing medical people do. Chase one set of symptoms with boatloads of money, which merely changes the nature of those symptoms.

The process starts all over again. Chase the new set of symptoms with more boatloads of money, which merely changes the nature of those symptoms.

The process starts all over again. Chase the new set of symptoms with more boatloads of money, which merely changes the nature of those symptoms.

You get the point.

Again, that’s why it’s so expensive. That’s why they’ve spent trillions of dollars and haven’t made any measurable improvement in the “patient’s” health.

In fact, the “patient” is getting worse.

[SENTINEL]

i think you missed the single biggest reason.

The Government has given the AMA a full blown monopoly over the ussueing of medical licenses...and the AMA doesn't grant license to folks who want to earn an associate's degree and make $50k a year to issue one-time two week prescriptions of antibiotics for common infections. Instead they force you to pay nuclear physicist rates to someone you just need to change your light switch...

[Reeses]

Good list. Don’t forget the costs of letting lawyers sue for every death and mistake. The jackpot payouts pale in comparison to the costs of precautionary medicine in a futile effort to avoid the jackpots.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

————I might have a problem with this one.—————

I don’t see why. This is pretty cut and dry. If government only pays 80 cents on the dollar, it’s a no brainer that someone has to pay the remainder.

You’ve never heard of cost shifting?

—————I can’t see the harm in negotiating the best price possible.——————

You don’t see the harm in cost shifting?

-——————You use the term “threaten”. I suspect if you spoke to Walmart suppliers they too might use that same term. I’d call hard nose negotiating.-——————

They probably would use the same term. But Walmart doesn’t have the power that government does, therefore walmart’s threats are somewhat more hollow than the governments.

-—————Because, you can be sure that American Pharma IS negotiating with the the western world socialized health care system.———————

Like who? Canada? They do roughly the same thing, with a twist. Canada’s government has the monopoly on their healthcare, so if the drug companies want to sell drugs to the masses of the great white north, they have to agree to whatever price the canadian government says that they’re only going to pay. Be it 30 cents on the dollar, 55, or 80. It doesn’t matter what the number is.

But Canada’s government has the luxury of being a guardian of every single door, and holding every single key. So the drug companies can only grab the ankles.

————I don’t think it’s a conservative principle to tie the hands of government and keep them from driving their costs down.-———————

It is a conservative principle to not make one group suffer in order to “help” out another.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Thanks for the contributing link.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

—————You’re not even close.

Every point you made is about paying the cost of healthcare.-—————

That’s because ‘paying the cost of healthcare’ is exactly what every policy intended to make healthcare better has had it’s most disastrous effect: the cost. Every one of these government mandates have inadvertently affected the cost.

-———The “healthcare” system doesn’t care about health.-————

That’s right it doesn’t. You see, it’s a thing. It’s not a person. Things don’t have a capability to care.

————————Maybe not every individual practitioner. I’m sure there is a solitary practitioner here and there who really does care about people’s health. I’m talking about the system as a whole. Everything from pre-med forward is about making money. None of it is about health.-——————

That’s better than the socialist alternative.

With big government healthcare, it’s in the doctor’s best interest to not completely heal you because s/he relies on that government check.

With a competitive system, if doctor A loses too many patients, they lose their practice. It’s in their best interests to heal you, regardless if they actually care or not. Caring isn’t in the equasion either way. But at least with a competitive system, the doctor is under the financial gun to get it right.

Your whole post is devoted to “caring”, who “cares” the most.

You’ve missed the point about socialist medicine. It isn’t about fixing people’s problems. It isn’t about getting people healthy. It’s about dependence, and about power.

If you are dependent upon the state, then they will always have their power.

For how many decades now have you seen politicians play the game of “don’t vote for him, he will take away your medicare/social security”?

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Do you have a link on that which further explains the situation?

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

Yeah yeah, darn. I knew I was forgetting something. Tort reform and the insane costs of malpractice liability insurance.

and defensive medicine too.(as you point out)

[socialismisinsidious]

Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this ping list.

[steelyourfaith]

Consider, too, that many years ago government encouraged medical insurance coverage by employers in that benefits were offered in lieu of additional salary without being subject to federal taxation. Once the insurance industry got a foothold, interposing itself in the money stream between those in need of services and the providers of those services, Big Insurance started angling for more and more control, pushing pencils, collecting premiums and denying benefits. In essence a parasite on the delivery of health-care, originally just siphoning off money, but then in too many cases negatively impacting treatment decisions and care.

[Rick_Michael]

Relief in interstate competition would decrease prices considerably. Then of coarse CHOICE mandates would be a good thing as well ie since dems/lobbyist/somepubs want you to be covered for prenatal...as a man...you atleast get to option out...and pay less. Much like car insurance, we’re not all looking for the same thing.

That would involve the federal government declaring power over the states on interstate commerce ie in not limiting it and semi-regulating it. haha....I wonder if they have the guts or conservatives have the will.

[gpk9]

"With big government healthcare, it’s in the doctor’s best interest to not completely heal you because s/he relies on that government check."

Correct. Medicine, the correct name, is one occupation that pays better for not achieving results than for achieving results.

Medical people are not paid nearly as much for succeeding and solving a problem as they are paid for trying, screwing around, guessing, trial-and-error, getting it wrong, failing, trying again, guessing again, more trial-and-error, screwing around again, getting it wrong again, failing again, trying again, guessing again, more trial-and-error, screwing around again, getting it wrong again, failing again, trying again, guessing again, more trial-and-error, screwing around again, getting it wrong again, failing again, trying again, guessing again, more trial-and-error, screwing around again, getting it wrong again, failing again, etc., ad infinitum, until the patient gets tired of all the drugs, runs out of money to pay for all the drugs, or dies from all the drugs. :)

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

"With big government healthcare, it’s in the doctor’s best interest to not completely heal you because s/he relies on that government check."

Correct. Medicine, the correct name, is one occupation that pays better for not achieving results than for achieving results.

That's why it's important to keep government out of the way of the system and keep the competition alive. Competition keeps doctors under the financial gun and insures that it's in their best interest to make you as healthy as medicinally possible.

A socialist medicine system by definition cannot work, wheras a capitalist one can. It's just sad that we haven't had a capitalist healthcare system in the US for at least 50 years. Sure, we at least have competition, but with as much government intrusion as we currently have, it can't be said with a straight face that the US healthcare system is based on free markets.

[Kozak]

I might have a problem with this one. If government is going to pick up the tab for some or all medical expenses, I can't see the harm in negotiating the best price possible. You use the term "threaten". I suspect if you spoke to Walmart suppliers they too might use that same term. I'd call hard nose negotiating.

Okay, when you come into the ER having chest pain, or with a gun shot wound lets "negotiate" see if you think it's just "hard nosed negotiating".....

[gpk9]

"Sure, we at least have competition, but with as much government intrusion as we currently have, it can't be said with a straight face that the US healthcare system is based on free markets."

I don't see where there is any competition in medicine. They're all trained the same way. They all think more or less the same way.

It has the same characteristics as a union. It's as if medicine was the United Medical Workers (UMW). Sure, you can choose which union worker you want to hire, but there is little discernable difference from one to the next, and they're all prohibitively expensive.

What we need is non-union competition so to speak. The right to hire a "non-UMW" worker rather than a "UMW worker".

But the government doesn't allow that. Why? Because the "United Medical Workers" union has a very strong well-funded lobby, just like the United Auto Workers union.

Some might say it's like the Bar Association, another union-type setup, but there is much more diversity among "workers" within the Bar Association. One can see clear distinct differences in mentality and skills between one Bar Association "worker" and another.

Nonetheless, I oppose all union-type setups. They are anti-free-market by nature. They stifle competition, the very thing that forces people to improve quality, deliver better results, and keep prices down.

There is no practical justification for making medicine a closed union-type operation, just as there is no practical justification for making law a closed union-type operation, just as there is no practical justification for making autoworkers a closed union-type operation, just as there is no practical justification for making any trade a closed union-type operation.

One might argue that medicine and law are "professions" and therefore must be closed union-type operations requiring licensing, but that argument is proven false every single day by all manner of under-performing people and non-performing people and just plain incompetent people in both of those "professions".

Licensing merely signifies that one was able to pass an arbitrary test at some point. There is no practical enforcement of licensing standards afterward. In fact, there are no on-going licensing standards in a practical sense. Licensing achives nothing that cannot be achieved through normal civil legal action. Licensed people get sued all the time for major screw-ups, the byproduct of general incompetence.

That is true of every form of licensing, not just medicine, law, trades, etc. The only practical effect of licensing is an on-going revenue stream for the license-issuing authority, and the authority to eject one from that "profession" or trade or whatever, which happens more often than not for purely political reasons, and those reasons more often than not being money-motivated.

Ditto for every form of union-type setup.

Both licensing and union-type setups are really just protection rackets in a practical sense. Protection rackets are viewed as criminal, hence licensing and union-type setups are criminal in a practical sense.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

—————I don’t see where there is any competition in medicine. -——————

In a good portion, there isn’t any. Our current model just isn’t capitalist.

The only way you’ll see competition is if you purposely seek out a doctor with a small practice. If you are in an area where you have doctor after doctor leeched into a big city hospital, then no way.

————They’re all trained the same way. They all think more or less the same way.——————

That doesn’t matter to the structure of the discussion.

Even the most ardently liberal doctor with a small practice has no choice but to compete. If he’s at a big hospital, then he’s probably very happy.

————It has the same characteristics as a union.-————

You have to delineate between doctors who have their own small practice or not.

I get what you’re saying about the union setup, in a lot of ways there is a striking resemblance.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

BTTT