The crux of the health care problem

[highnote]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

The bolded part of this quote gets the crux of the health care problem.


WENDELL POTTER: Well, I was beginning to question what I was doing as the industry shifted from selling primarily managed care plans, to what they refer to as consumer-driven plans. And they're really plans that have very high deductibles, meaning that they're shifting a lot of the cost of health care from employers and insurers, insurance companies, to individuals. And a lot of people can't even afford to make their co-payments when they go get care, as a result of this. But it really took a trip back home to Tennessee for me to see exactly what is happening to so many Americans.

In some ways, the cost of health care should fall on individuals and NOT on corporations or employers. It is individuals who use health care, not corporations and employers, right?

The question is, how long can this trend continue?

Maybe employers should stop offering health care plans and just let their employees pay their own way? The savings that corporation will have can be given to employees who can then go out and purchase their own plans on the open market. Would that be so bad?

As it is now, a corporation is subsidizing the health care costs of it's employees. As an investor in a corporation, I want costs to be kept to a minimum so that the profits of the corporation are maximized which makes my investment worth more.

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

The bolded part of this quote gets the crux of the health care problem.




In some ways, the cost of health care should fall on individuals and NOT on corporations or employers. It is individuals who use health care, not corporations and employers, right?

The question is, how long can this trend continue?

Maybe employers should stop offering health care plans and just let their employees pay their own way? The savings that corporation will have can be given to employees who can then go out and purchase their own plans on the open market. Would that be so bad?

As it is now, a corporation is subsidizing the health care costs of it's employees. As an investor in a corporation, I want costs to be kept to a minimum so that the profits of the corporation are maximized which makes my investment worth more.
"The savings that corporation will have can be given to employees... I want costs to be kept to a minimum so that the profits of the corporation are maximized which makes my investment worth more."
????

[highnote]

"The savings that corporation will have can be given to employees... I want costs to be kept to a minimum so that the profits of the corporation are maximized which makes my investment worth more."
????


Yeah. That makes sense. :blush:

I was trying to think like a hypothetical investor. If a corp can cut it's health care costs and then give it's employees a raise, the employees can use the extra money to buy health insurance. The corp will no longer have the health care cost, but they will be unlikely to pay employees all the money they have saved on health care costs. So that means more money to the bottom line.

Hypothetically, of course. :D

But seriously, ultimately, does it make a difference if the employer takes care of it's employees or the government takes care of it's citizens?

Either the employee has a reduced salary because a portion goes to pay health care costs -- or the citizen has less disposable income because a portion of their income goes to taxes to cover health care costs.

[highnote]

The point is, the trend for the insurance companies is to shift the cost of health care to employees. So if employees are shouldering the cost, then why should corporations even offer health care?

It makes sense to me that there should be one large pool of insurance policies for all people to choose from. Currently, state laws limit competition.

This is where the Fed needs to intervene and open up the markets to all players.

And one final point -- I'm not saying I have the solution and am not advocating a particular solution. All I'm doing is trying to find a better solution than what is available. And it's possible that we have the best solution available. I doubt it. There is always room for innovation.

[lamboguy]

the health care problem can only be solved be individual people taking care of themselves and their family's. that means don't eat all the crappy food that they decieve you with on television, and stop taking the bad drugs that the pharmceutical company's push on you.

[jonnielu]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

The bolded part of this quote gets the crux of the health care problem.




In some ways, the cost of health care should fall on individuals and NOT on corporations or employers. It is individuals who use health care, not corporations and employers, right?

The question is, how long can this trend continue?

Maybe employers should stop offering health care plans and just let their employees pay their own way? The savings that corporation will have can be given to employees who can then go out and purchase their own plans on the open market. Would that be so bad?

As it is now, a corporation is subsidizing the health care costs of it's employees. As an investor in a corporation, I want costs to be kept to a minimum so that the profits of the corporation are maximized which makes my investment worth more.

Individuals get nothing from governments or corporations, these entities have nothing and it is impossible for them to have anything except what they can get from people.

Corporations do not pay taxes, people do. Governments do not give anything, people do.

It is not complicated.

jdl

[WaHoo]

the company i retired from has been passing the cost on to the employees the last 5 or 6 years, depending on dependants costs running up to $700 a month and they're not giving the employees any more pay..

I wonder when Obama-genda passes health reform, if i'll still be able to get the same coverage i have now and at a lower cost.
since 1970 they Gave me insurance, i didn't care if i had it or not ,Now i do
my cost has doubled in 39 years to $70 a month, my wife has had 3 surgerys they paid for everything. in May her knee replacement just the hospital was $33k.. and they pay for all our medicine.

ps- a lot of those employees have dropped their insurance coverage from the company

[highnote]

the health care problem can only be solved be individual people taking care of themselves and their family's. that means don't eat all the crappy food that they decieve you with on television, and stop taking the bad drugs that the pharmceutical company's push on you.


The problem with this view is that even though it is correct, it is not realistic.

I'll give you an example. I was working with a cardiologist several years ago and I had just read Dr. Dean Ornish's book called, "Reversing Hearth Disease - the Only Scientifically Proven Method of Reversing Hearth Disease without Drugs or Surgery".

Ornish advocates a healthy lifestyle, no fat diet, no read meat -- in fact, no meat at all for the reversal diet, exercise, etc.

I asked the cardiologist why he doesn't require his patients to follow Ornish's advice rather than give them cholesterol lowering drugs. He said point blank, "Because they won't do it." People would rather take the drugs and without the drugs they will die sooner.

So if a person can live 20 years longer and be a productive member of society by taking drugs then it probably makes sense to give them the drugs -- as long as they are willing to bear the cost. Problem is, as a healthy person with a healthy lifestyle, I subsidize their unhealthiness.

So whether we like it or not we are all interdependent in this society.

[highnote]

I wonder when Obama-genda passes health reform, if i'll still be able to get the same coverage i have now and at a lower cost.
since 1970 they Gave me insurance, i didn't care if i had it or not ,Now i do

You're lucky to have been able to work for a company that provided health care. I live in a community that has the most Fortune 500 company headquarters in the country and I'm about 40 miles from Wall Street. So most people in my town have great health insurance policies from their employers.

I grew up in Ohio near the WV/Pennsylvania border in Appalachia. There is probably not a Fortune 500 company in the whole county.

So imagine if you're the owner of a small cafe in my home town -- or anywhere in Appalachia -- and you have a staff of waitresses and dishwashers. You're probably paying minimum wage to the dishwashers and less than minimum wage to the waitresses because they get tips. You're probably lucky to eke out a living and it's doubtful you make enough to pay for health insurance for your staff -- and maybe can't even afford health insurance for yourself.

What is the solution for you and your employees?

[boxcar]

The problem with this view is that even though it is correct, it is not realistic.

I'll give you an example. I was working with a cardiologist several years ago and I had just read Dr. Dean Ornish's book called, "Reversing Hearth Disease - the Only Scientifically Proven Method of Reversing Hearth Disease without Drugs or Surgery".

Ornish advocates a healthy lifestyle, no fat diet, no read meat -- in fact, no meat at all for the reversal diet, exercise, etc.

I asked the cardiologist why he doesn't require his patients to follow Ornish's advice rather than give them cholesterol lowering drugs. He said point blank, "Because they won't do it." People would rather take the drugs and without the drugs they will die sooner.

So if a person can live 20 years longer and be a productive member of society by taking drugs then it probably makes sense to give them the drugs -- as long as they are willing to bear the cost. Problem is, as a healthy person with a healthy lifestyle, I subsidize their unhealthiness.

So whether we like it or not we are all interdependent in this society.

Pssst....let me tell ya a secret: You're also subsidizing the healthy ones with healthy lifestyles because ostensibly they get to live longer, which means they put a bigger drain on SS, which eventually will have to overhauled. And you do know how that's going to be done, right? Did I hear you say "taxes"? In short, healthy older folks will have to supported longer by the SS system.

Boxcar

[highnote]

Pssst....let me tell ya a secret: You're also subsidizing the healthy ones with healthy lifestyles because ostensibly they get to live longer, which means they put a bigger drain on SS, which eventually will have to overhauled. And you do know how that's going to be done, right? Did I hear you say "taxes"? In short, healthy older folks will have to supported longer by the SS system.

Boxcar


That's a valid point and is why these are tricky problems to solve and is why we need to discuss them.

I'm not convinced we have the best possible system. There is always room for innovation. Innovation can come from the private sector or from government. It can't hurt to discuss new ideas.

[Tom]

But John, Obama has to stop lying about the current plan before he can discuss REAL HC reform.

HC reform is NOT a goal of Obama or the dems...never was.

Hitler told the Jews those were showers and they bought it. Evil leaders lie a lot.

[Warren Henry]

Is that the ultimate consumer bears no responsibility for his consumption of services. I blame Medicare and Medicaid for most of this problem. There is no incentive for the customer (patient) to attempt to keep costs to a minimum.

If everyone had very high deductible insurance (with a low premium) and had to pay out of pocket for the routine non-catastrophic medical care, prices would come down.

How about a little common sense tort reform. How about there being a financial penalty for suing and losing? That would reduce the nuisance lawsuits - which would reduce costs. How about a gold standard specification for care for specific problems. If the doctor follows the gold standard, he/she cannot be sued for not doing something else. That would eliminate a lot of the defensive medicine that is practiced today - which would help reduce costs. So many common sense solutions to improve the health care system without sacrificing availability or quality of the care. Will they happen. Probably not because they transfer control to the consumer instead of the government.

[46zilzal]

Corporations do not pay taxes, people do. Governments do not give anything, people do.



yes and that is becoming a bigger problem each year

[Tom]

This is as it should be.

[boxcar]

yes and that is becoming a bigger problem each year

And your solution is....???? C'mon, zilly, don't disappoint me again. Show me you have a half a brain in your head. Show me that you're not a lost soul and cause outside of a book.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

yes and that is becoming a bigger problem each year

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You have no idea what jon meant. Your AI speech button got tripped by a keyword, so you commented even though you had no idea what you were commenting on.

:lol: :lol:

What's that supposed education you claim to have?

[Warren Henry]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You have no idea what jon meant. Your AI speech button got tripped by a keyword, so you commented even though you had no idea what you were commenting on.

:lol: :lol:

What's that supposed education you claim to have?
He just instinctively knows the right thing to say. Oh, no, I mean the left thing to say.

[robert99]

On a more important matter of making money from all the squawking:

Hedge funds are going seriously short on all USA health care plan providers.
To them they are going the way of the failed investment banks.
They cannot keep up the ever increasing payments even if part is not "Governmentised". One example quoted was EU negotiate for USA made pacemakers to £5000 each. In USA, the insurer is charged at £35,000 for same item. Hedge funds believe in reality not the scandalous lies of the Republican vested interests.