ShokWaveRider
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Simply put, Health insurance should be NON profit as it is in most other civilized countries. Making money on the back of other people's health issues is not humane.
Simply put, Health insurance should be NON profit as it is in most other civilized countries. Making money on the back of other people's health issues is not humane.
It's interesting, though, that the cost-shifting to the consumer (mostly in the form of very high deductibles) is having the anticipated effect.
And groceries should be non profit as making money on the hunger of others is not humane.
Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
And groceries should be non profit as making money on the hunger of others is not humane.
If we had "food insurance" where I could pay about 20% of the cost and my employer or the government would chip in the rest, you can bet our food would be very expensive. And I'd be eating a lot of lobster. Then, we'd have a crisis and somebody would propose price caps and limiting the options. So, we'd get expensive bread and water, and we'd probably have shortages of those.And groceries should be non profit as making money on the hunger of others is not humane.
Precisely. I think people are becoming more and more aware that stuff isn't "free" because it is covered by insurance or the government. The attitude that says "don't worry, consumer, insurance will pay it" doesn't fly so well any more. People are seeing what is happening with runaway health care costs. Insurance rates are going way up. Insurers are pulling out of ACA Marketplace plans. Deductibles, copays and out of pocket maximums are rising several times faster than inflation. Formularies are being cut back.
All these things are happening in large part because of the sort of things this company is doing (there are, of course, several other significant factors that are not the fault of providers or drugmakers). A few decades ago we didn't really notice if insurance was paying when employers were still eating all the rising costs and our copays, if any, were like $5 or $10 per visit. But now, it's blatantly obvious what actions like these are doing to continue to make the US health care market the most unaffordable and dysfunctional in the industrialized world. Ask yourself this: Why aren't these prices being jacked up like this in Canada, or the UK, or Germany, or Japan (among many, many others)? IMO it's because our model uniquely allows the US consumer and insurance company to subsidize the rest of the world, since they can providers and drugmakers can pretty much charge whatever the hell they want here.
Few people notice the cost of an expensive med when the co-pay is $10.
Timo.... you obviously do NOT get it. Heather Bresch is CEO of a pharmaceutical company, NOT a health insurance company.
Most people paying a $10 co-pay for a med are not told what the actual retail "price" (cost?) of the med is. I also doubt if that retail price is the same from pharmacy to pharmacy.
Simply put, Health insurance should be NON profit as it is in most other civilized countries. Making money on the back of other people's health issues is not humane.
Precisely. I think people are becoming more and more aware that stuff isn't "free" because it is covered by insurance or the government. The attitude that says "don't worry, consumer, insurance will pay it" doesn't fly so well any more. People are seeing what is happening with runaway health care costs. Insurance rates are going way up. Insurers are pulling out of ACA Marketplace plans. Deductibles, copays and out of pocket maximums are rising several times faster than inflation. Formularies are being cut back.
All these things are happening in large part because of the sort of things this company is doing (there are, of course, several other significant factors that are not the fault of providers or drugmakers). A few decades ago we didn't really notice if insurance was paying when employers were still eating all the rising costs and our copays, if any, were like $5 or $10 per visit. But now, it's blatantly obvious what actions like these are doing to continue to make the US health care market the most unaffordable and dysfunctional in the industrialized world. Ask yourself this: Why aren't these prices being jacked up like this in Canada, or the UK, or Germany, or Japan (among many, many others)? IMO it's because our model uniquely allows the US consumer and insurance company to subsidize the rest of the world, since they can providers and drugmakers can pretty much charge whatever the hell they want here.
Most people paying a $10 co-pay for a med are not told what the actual retail "price" (cost?) of the med is. I also doubt if that retail price is the same from pharmacy to pharmacy.
Insurance industry profits are not a significant driver of health insurance premiums. A Yahoo Finance analysis places the health insurance sector’s average profit margin in 2012 at just
4.5 percent. By comparison, major drug manufacturers have an average profit margin of 16.7 percent; medical instrument and supply companies, 13.6 percent; biotechnology, 11.9 percent; and medical appliance and equipment companies, 13.7 percent.22
Administrative costs represent less than 2 percent of health care spending growth. Private insurance administrative costs are actually comparable to Medicare’s administrative costs when comparing similar services. In 2009, private payers expended $12.51 per member per month versus $13.19 for Medicare.23
Importantly, private insurer administrative costs include fraud detection, disease management, wellness programs, and investments in information technology.
I think it might be fairer to say that this 1963 paper points out the challenges of applying free market principles to health care, as Arrow never says free market principles can't be made to work in supplying this service. But he certainly points out the need to account for the unique characteristics of this particular service/good.Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow shows us why a "free market" approach does not work in health care in his paper "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care" .
As our experience with the ACA continues, it is clear that in significant areas Arrow's "gap" is growing, and the "less obvious consequences" grow more obvious to everyone willing to look."I propose here the view that, when the market fails to achieve an optimal state, society will, to some extent at least, recognize the gap, and nonmarket social institutions will arise attempting to bridge it. . . . It has always been a favorite activity of economists to point out that actions which on their face achieve a desirable goal may have less obvious consequences, particularly over time, which more than offset the original gains."
One thing that I will say.... hospitals must be making a killing as there are MANY that have been built in the past few years or are being built close to where I live... and I do not think we have a shortage of hospitals...
Not so sure. Hospitals have to eat (write off) a LOT of ER debts that patients can't pay (poor and uninsured). By law they are required to treat patients regardless of ability to pay, but you can't draw blood from a rock and if they can't pay.... the costs are just shifted to the rest of us.
Not so sure. Hospitals have to eat (write off) a LOT of ER debts that patients can't pay (poor and uninsured). By law they are required to treat patients regardless of ability to pay, but you can't draw blood from a rock and if they can't pay.... the costs are just shifted to the rest of us.
How does that avoid "shifting costs to the rest of us?" It's explicitly designed to "shift costs to the rest of us."Another reason why a National System will work to reduce costs.
How does that avoid "shifting costs to the rest of us?" It's explicitly designed to "shift costs to the rest of us."
Not so sure. Hospitals have to eat (write off) a LOT of ER debts that patients can't pay (poor and uninsured). By law they are required to treat patients regardless of ability to pay, but you can't draw blood from a rock and if they can't pay.... the costs are just shifted to the rest of us.
I never said it would not "share" costs. Because EVERYONE who pays taxes pays their fair share and no one is "Too Healthy" to claim they do not want to buy health insurance. Everyone will need it at some point or another.
Why I this so hard for intelligent logically thinking people not to understand?
If they are doing so bad (and I will not say all of them are doing good), then why is there a building boom going on here in Houston
I do not think they would be spending so much on construction in order to lose money...