Lamar, "We have a better idea."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That statement is only valid if you qualify it with the caveat that it only pertains to those who can afford to pay for that type of treatment.

and MOST can.

The problem isn't having to pay for the procedure. The problem is 'why' the costs are so high.

There are a multitude of reasons why costs are high and most can be traced back to regulation/nanny state mentality. Some procedures that might be cheaper to perform are considered 'not safe enough' eventhough other nations use them just fine, but the risk is higher, so we don't allow doctors to perform them (well, legally anyway). Stop that kind of ####### for one.

Sure, this drug might cause hair to form on 20% of women's chests who take it, but it just cured her problem... why the hell shouldn't she have the choice to take that drug if it will fix her problem? I mean it's a 1 in 5 shot she'll grow hair in odd places, but it's a 4/5 shot she won't. I still call those good odds..... There are simple things like that where the FDA blocks the drug.

and you can make the lobbying argument, but is the problem the action of lobbying itself or the scumbag lawyers who listen to it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The 'system' they may not like, but you can't beat the quality/efficiency in comparison.

Efficiency? Efficiency is output relative to cost. We pay nearly twice as much per capita as the next industrialized country and yet we're way on top when it comes to people not covered by the health care system. So, we pay the most for the least in overall return. That ain't what an efficient system does but what an inefficient system does. There isn't a health care system in the developed world as inefficient as ours.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I am sure that when the Government takes over health care and embeds a huge bureaucracy then we will become efficient. A bureaucrat run system that has someone on the bottom take the info and sends it up a chain of command through many steps and then when it reaches the top and comes back down is very efficient.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Let's use medicine men and go back to living in caves. That would but the deficit instantly and help us pay off the national debt.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Let's use medicine men and go back to living in caves. That would but the deficit instantly and help us pay off the national debt.

Hey, Sean Connery kicked #### in the jungle as the "Medicine Man"

[Pooky 3,844]

LOL.

Come on now, please don't even try and play that game.

Insurance companies make a profit yes, BUT they aren't the bad guys. Their profits aren't that high in comparison to most businesses out there and there are many regulations they have to follow as to how they obtain those profits. Your "dues" aren't the exact way they make their money either. Investment is a huge role or an insurance company.

Whether many people know it or not, insurance companies (especially ones like Blue Cross/Blue Shield) have a huge overhead to be able to be the companies that they are. Between government regulations, requirement of piddly services for all policies, having to have an actual corporate office in every state that they operate in, employees in every state, and on top of that having to negotiate rates with doctors who need a little more money to make up for the lack of funds they get from medicaid and medicare, I'd say they do a pretty good job.

Government over-regulates, keeps the market closed, and expects costs to go down?

Health Care costs have nothing to do with insurance companies being 'greedy' lol. If you truly think that, then you have no real understanding of the health care industry at all or ANY business for that matter. Insurance companies just like anyone else want to pay as little as possible for services.

Wal-Mart wouldn't be as big as it is if they didn't find ways to keep "costs" down.

The next time your insurance rate goes up or you see an update to your policy, you can 9/10 trace it back to a new piece of legislation, whether it be a mandate by the federal government or a mandate by your state/local government.

And everything you have said above validates removing insurance companies from the healthcare equation.

First off, their profits remove money from the healthcare system, which, as a cost for no return, is the very definition of an inefficiency. Second, the overhead of these insurance companies is, in large part, down to the bureaucracy and staffing in place to review and, wherever possible, reject insurance claims. Don't kid yourself that insurance companies have your best interests at heart. I know from recent, personal experience how ridiculous they can get over a claim. Another whole level of inefficiency.

Remove insurance companies from the system at the base level, go to a State-level single payer system and there will be significant savings made.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And everything you have said above validates removing insurance companies from the healthcare equation.

First off, their profits remove money from the healthcare system, which, as a cost for no return, is the very definition of an inefficiency. Second, the overhead of these insurance companies is, in large part, down to the bureaucracy and staffing in place to review and, wherever possible, reject insurance claims. Don't kid yourself that insurance companies have your best interests at heart. I know from recent, personal experience how ridiculous they can get over a claim. Another whole level of inefficiency.

Remove insurance companies from the system at the base level, go to a State-level single payer system and there will be significant savings made.

State-level maybe.

Granted the idea we even need insurance period is a fallacy to me.

If the whole industry (doctors, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, etc..) weren't so over-regulated in what they can/cannot do, then there'd be a fighting chance when it comes to cost.

I'm all for eliminating insurance, but you have to make the whole system more affordable first.

I mean really. There's a problem somewhere down the line if you have to 'pool' everyone's money together in any way for you to be able to pay for something.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Youv'e got to be kidding. The problem with our health care system is the insurance companies. They are profit driven, not health driven.

Must be a government employee? You makin a profit for your company?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Hey, Sean Connery kicked #### in the jungle as the "Medicine Man"

That he did. Good movie, I enjoyed it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Efficiency? Efficiency is output relative to cost. We pay nearly twice as much per capita as the next industrialized country and yet we're way on top when it comes to people not covered by the health care system. So, we pay the most for the least in overall return. That ain't what an efficient system does but what an inefficient system does. There isn't a health care system in the developed world as inefficient as ours.

WE? Check the population factors bud.

[Danno 1,228]

Again, if you are not proud of the care the VA Hospitals have offered over the years why oh why would you have faith Big Gov can do it better on a even bigger scale?

Lets not act rash, instead lets see Obama straighten out the existing health care agencies before we trust him with new ones.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

WE? Check the population factors bud.

Population factors? What part of per capita do you not understand?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am sure that when the Government takes over health care and embeds a huge bureaucracy then we will become efficient. A bureaucrat run system that has someone on the bottom take the info and sends it up a chain of command through many steps and then when it reaches the top and comes back down is very efficient.

First, no government takeover of the healthcare system is proposed. Secondly, that's actually sad seeing that medicare bureacracy (overhead) is somewhere in the 2%-3% range while PHI bureaucracy (overhead) is in the 20%-30% range. In other words, if we're looking to reduce bureaucracy, taking PHI out of the system would go a very ong way.

Not only that, but the per enrollee cost increases have been lower in the Medicare system - which doesn't get to cherry-pick it's enrollee population - than in the PHI system - which does to an extend get to cherry-pick. That shows that Medicare - while certainly not free of problems - still manages cost better than PHI.

Next.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Population factors? What part of per capita do you not understand?

You'd be better of comparing per-capita to nation's of a similar population though.

It's not even close to fair to try and compare nations that combined are with a population a little over 100 million people with a nation of 310 million people....

You have a lot more people to take care of and any type of single-payer system is just not feasible without addressing the cost issue as a whole.

Again Health Care COSTS have NOTHING to do with Insurance. Insurance is what you purchase so you can obtain or somewhat try and afford health care.

That does nothing to figure out the 'costs' of medical equipment, overhead for hospitals/doctors offices, prescription drugs, etc....

You cannot expect the federal government to take on the burden of 'cost' without addressing the issue of cost first. and you DONT address that issue by forcing everyone onto the system with a threat of fines/jail time if they don't pay into it. This is the USA not some communist country.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You'd be better of comparing per-capita to nation's of a similar population though.

It's not even close to fair to try and compare nations that combined are with a population a little over 100 million people with a nation of 310 million people....

What difference does the size of the population make when considering the per capita cost of the health care system? Take the EU and you have a population of more than 320 million and their per capita cost on health care is half that of the US. Don't like that? Take the portion of the GDP absorbed by the health care system and there isn't a developed country to be found that has it's health care system suck up 17% of it's GDP. Not one. You can slice it any way you want and you'll still end up with this basic fact: The US health care system is the most inefficient in the developed world.