Walmart and Unions agree!

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by HaHa

Has it dawned on you that cancer is largely a disease of older people, and therefore most cancer care in the good ol' USA is already government funded? As is most trauma care, in the country that really gets trauma right. Oh yeah, I should also mention that the techniques that make the US pre-eminent in trauma care were developed in another bastion of government medicine- the military!

And while we are at it, how about the CDC, NIH, NIMH? Do you think these are privately funded?

Ha

Yes, the older people get the benefit of using the same hospital system that everyone in our country uses. The problem is, the people who have private healthcare are the ones who have to fund the cost of the care, because the government Medicare system does not compensate our healthcare providers enough to pay for the cost. If it weren't for the private system, the care would be mediocre.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by Beststash

MKLD - You might be right but do I have to get to be 65+ to avoid the profit scams?? I retired early to enjoy life and not deal with a bunch of 10+% healthcare increase every year since 2000 - you can' tell me that all of the sudden the cost of healthcare went up - WRONG.

I am stuck paying the tab but it is seriously cutting into my budget and it is re-dick-ulous!!

Peace

The hospital administrator at the symposium I attended made it very clear they they increase costs at a far greater rate than inflation each year BECAUSE of the lack of compensation they get from the government Medicare and Medicaid systems. During negotiations, these costs are passed on to private insurance carriers, which are then passed down in the form of higher premiums. It's not corporate greed that's causing the majority of the problem. It's the costs of uncompensated care. IMO, The solution to the problem lies in getting everyone covered under, what I would prefer be some kind of private system rather than public, and costs will come down.

[Brat]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

The hospital administrator at the symposium I attended made it very clear they they increase costs at a far greater rate than inflation each year BECAUSE of the lack of compensation they get from the government Medicare and Medicaid systems. During negotiations, these costs are passed on to private insurance carriers, which are then passed down in the form of higher premiums. It's not corporate greed that's causing the majority of the problem. It's the costs of uncompensated care. IMO, The solution to the problem lies in getting everyone covered under, what I would prefer be some kind of private system rather than public, and costs will come down.

I agree that uncompensated or inadequate reimbursement for the care of some are passed on by charging others more. Because some people are unable/unwilling to fund basic care for themselves I think there needs to be some system that takes a little from everyone for basic care. Maybe add a penny or two to the gas tax.

We also need to think about more efficient delivery of basic services. My chiropractor is very good, but I don't want to have chiropractic services in a national basic plan, for example. There needs to be incentives for efficiency.

[. . . Yrs to Go]

Originally Posted by Martha

Walmart has come out in support of increasing the minimum wage. It says its customers are having difficulty in purchasing its products. Could Walmart possibly support a national healthcare plan? Maybe. Maybe the one group that can move us away from an employer based system is the employer.

Neither Walmart's support of a minimum wage increase nor national healthcare is strange. In view of the fact that Walmart is in the business of making money for its owners, not running a charity for its workers, the stance may seem strange on the surface. But self interest is the driving motivator in both these cases. With minimum wage, Walmart's average worker makes something like $9.50 / hour - far above the existing, and new, minimum. So supporting the increase will not cost Walmart anything. It could, however, increase the costs of Walmart's competitors and it may put a few more shekels in the pockets of its customers. Finally, it also buys the company some badly needed favorable press at little or no cost.

Same thing with universal health care. Despite the bad press, Walmart provides health insurance for something like 40-50% of its employees (subject to check). That is far above retailers in general and is not a bad statistic when you consider that many employees are probably already covered by parents or spouses (i.e. my wife's former employers didn't provider her health insurance even though it was available. We used mine instead.) So if Walmart can shift the cost of health insurance to someone else (taxpayers maybe?), it not only reduces a cost of doing business but it makes Walmart more competitive against smaller retailers that don't provide any health care coverage (nor are pressured to by media and politicians). Walmart also gets some glowing press to help burnish their tarnished image as a corporation dutifully discharging its fiduciary responsibility to its owners - the horror!

[. . . Yrs to Go]

Originally Posted by HaHa

Has it dawned on you that cancer is largely a disease of older people, and therefore most cancer care in the good ol' USA is already government funded?

But there are problems of extending generous coverage to the entire population. A brewing controversy in Japan is that many expensive cancer treatments are not available because the government has decided the cost benefit isn't worth it. Cold comfort to those with the disease. According to this article (which is a very interesting read) there is a spreading movement in Japan among patients who want American-style care and drugs for cancer.

Until people come to grips with the fact that you can't have unlimited amounts of care and affordable prices people will be disappointed with any system. In Japan they've chosen low cost and have had to limit care. We've chosen high cost with an excess of care. Somewhere in the mushy center is a middle ground that will not completely satisfy anyone, but is probably the best alternative.

[Brat]

Originally Posted by 3 Yrs to Go

... A brewing controversy in Japan is that many expensive cancer treatments are not available because the government has decided the cost benefit isn't worth it.

Here is where tough choices need to be made. The taxpayer can't do it all. Oregon had a state program that funded treatments ranked on the basis of cost benefit and the Feds rejected it. A program that offered treatment based on the cost benefit ratio up to a certain limit, then a catastrophic provision might balance it out. Individuals could self-insure if they wished for the for the balance. My concern about HSAs it the huge portion of the population who don't get that, the insurance industry should be free to offer guaranteed renewable policies for that population.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by 3 Yrs to Go

Somewhere in the mushy center is a middle ground that will not completely satisfy anyone, but is probably the best alternative.

3 yrs, you are right on! That is a fantastic article and brings to reality some of the LONG TERM consequences of universal care. (Notice it took about 40 years for Japan's system to start "breaking"). Just imagine, poor cancer care for a rapidly aging nation (America) with 60% of it's people falling into the category of being obese.

Actually, I think we are pretty close to that middle ground right now, as people who have had very rich benefits in the past are now starting to have to have higher deductibles or have to pay extra for guaranteed issue of coverage, etc...and they are not liking it! The laws of economics say that the market will not continually spiral out of control to the point where no one can afford coverage, because at some point the costs of care will have to flatten out or hospitals and other providers will run themselvels out of business. I'll have to do some research on this, but I am pretty sure that costs have already begun to flatten a bit over the last couple of years.

The biggest problem we have right now in our country is the uninsured market, which actually is probably quite a bit smaller than what the statistics say, since a large portion of the uninsured market is people who are in a transitional state of temporarily having no coverage due to being in between jobs, etc..and another large chunk are actually people who choose to remain uninsured, even though they can afford it. If we can just get these numbers down, and I prefer to do it through capitalistic methods such as tax incentives or penalites, I think we will have a nice, happy medium. I'm still not sure what the best way to handle the working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid is, but maybe if the gov't offered Medicaid on a sliding scale instead of having an eligibility cutoff point, we could eliminate some of the uninsured that fall into that category.

Right now, we've got a situation where demand is outpacing supply, so maybe some supply side economics could be helpful as well...such as, perhaps, gov't programs to help fund education for providers?..

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by Beststash

you can' tell me that all of the sudden the cost of healthcare went up - WRONG.

The year 2000 was a turning point. The economy was beginning to go into recession and then 9/11 happened in 01. During that time, Medicaid enrollment rose sharply, which resulted in cost-shifting to the private sector. Overall healthcare costs led by prescription drugs and hospital costs also grew significantly over this time period, which further exacerbated the problem, so it was a combination of issues that caused the drastic rise in health insurance premiums.