PDA

View Full Version : Knotty Challenges in Health Care Costs


Native Texan III
03-08-2012, 12:19 PM
An interview with Victor Fuchs, who has spent decades studying the economics of health care.

"The numbers, the projections, make health economists shudder.
Enlarge This Image (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/03/06/science/06COST.html','06COST_html','width=428,height=630,s crollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes'))
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/06/science/06COST/06COST-articleInline.jpg (javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/03/06/science/06COST.html','06COST_html','width=428,height=630,s crollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes'))
Stanford

THE DEAN Victor Fuchs says change is unlikely from within the health care system.



The average per capita cost of health care in the United States is over $8,000 annually, double the amount spent in most European countries. The Congressional Budget Office projects that unless costs are brought under control in the next decade, the nation will be spending all of its tax revenues on health care, Social Security (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), interest on the debt and defense — but mostly health care.

“If we solve our health care spending, practically all of our fiscal problems go away,” said Victor Fuchs, emeritus professor of economics and health research and policy at Stanford University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/stanford_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org). And if we don’t? “Then almost anything else we do will not solve our fiscal problems.”

Dr. Fuchs, who has been called the dean of American health care economists, has spent five decades studying the health care problem. In his view, what is needed is the sort of major change that comes once in a decade, perhaps, or even just once in a generation.

But change, he believes, will not bubble up from within the health care system itself. "



Why do we pay so much for health care?
"We have higher administrative costs and a very complicated system for billing.

We have a 2-to-1 ratio of specialists to primary care physicians. In other countries the ratio is 50-50. Specialists spend more money and use more exotic interventions and also get paid more per hour of work.

We have more standby capacity. The United States has 4.2 times as many M.R.I. (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/test/mri/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) scanners as Canada. We have more malpractice claims.

We have less social support for the poor. Some of the additional spending comes about because we will take a poor sick person in the hospital, discharge them, and then they are back in the hospital for a month.

Drug prices are higher here. And physician incomes are higher.

Is there a large pent-up demand for a single-payer system?

No. Many Americans oppose a larger role for government. Many think their employer is paying for their health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), rather than it coming out of their wages. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/health/policy/an-interview-with-victor-fuchs-on-health-care-costs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Tom
03-08-2012, 12:37 PM
Sticking government into a bad situation is asking for trouble.
The role of government should be limited to enabling health care cost cutting, not manipulating it.

boxcar
03-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Why do we pay so much for health care?
"We have higher administrative costs and a very complicated system for billing.

Thanks to the federal government. Very telling that he puts this item at the top of the list. If the U.S. government had kept themselves out of our medical care, we wouldn't be at this point. Proof-positive that when the government injects itself into the private sector, they will ruin whatever industry it is they're trying to control, and of course, the people will have to pay for the government's mistakes.

So, how is the government going to bring down costs? Simple. It's called rationing. Euthanasia could also be mandated because to progressives life is cheap. Besides, the argument will be made by Pelosi that the SS death benefits paid to survivors would be a great stimulus to the economy. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

TJDave
03-08-2012, 01:33 PM
We have more standby capacity. The United States has 4.2 times as many M.R.I. (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/test/mri/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) scanners as Canada.

Canada has a wonderful health care system...until you need to use it. :rolleyes:

I have a Canadian friend who will either spend his children's inheritance or die waiting for his free health care.

TJDave
03-08-2012, 01:48 PM
So, how is the government going to bring down costs? Simple. It's called rationing. Euthanasia could also be mandated because to progressives life is cheap.

Regardless of whether the government is involved, there WILL be rationing.

boxcar
03-08-2012, 02:07 PM
Regardless of whether the government is involved, there WILL be rationing.

Is there rationing going on now?

Boxcar

TJDave
03-08-2012, 06:35 PM
Is there rationing going on now?
Boxcar

Health care is a finite resource. The only folks who get "no holds barred" "spare no expense" care are those who can pay the freight.

boxcar
03-08-2012, 06:48 PM
Health care is a finite resource. The only folks who get "no holds barred" "spare no expense" care are those who can pay the freight.

And that is morally wrong? The only people who can drive around in 75k+ automobiles are those "who can pay the freight". What's your point? According to the Food Justice League of America :rolleyes: , the only people who really eat well are the rich. Morally wrong?

All health insurance policies have limits on specific benefits and total liability limits. And these vary from policy to policy. Not all policies are created equal. Morally wrong?

Therefore, in a sense it could be said that since these policies stipulate limits that insurance companies, too, "ration" health care. However, can you see an important difference between this type of rationing and government rationing?

Boxcar

lamboguy
03-08-2012, 06:49 PM
Regardless of whether the government is involved, there WILL be rationing.
not with ROMNEYCARE

boxcar
03-08-2012, 06:53 PM
not with ROMNEYCARE

Wonder why more than half the state is dissatisfied with it then? Any insights?

Boxcar

lamboguy
03-08-2012, 07:10 PM
Wonder why more than half the state is dissatisfied with it then? Any insights?

Boxcar
unfortunately if you don't qualify for ROMNEY CARE, you health care insurance will cost you more than any other state.

as you probably have figured out by now, the main contributors for Romney's try for the president are the healthcare providers that have benefited in massachusetts from higher premiums and healthcare costs.

if Romney is elected, he has no problem passing a health insurance reform bill, it already exists with the current president.

TJDave
03-08-2012, 07:18 PM
However, can you see an important difference between this type of rationing and government rationing?


The only difference is in who does the rationing, private business or the government. If I needed a life saving procedure...the insurance refusing to pay vs the government not authorizing isn't something in which I would take much comfort.


I have zero problem with rationing. You're the one who's complaining about rationing.

boxcar
03-08-2012, 07:30 PM
The only difference is in who does the rationing, private business or the government. If I needed a life saving procedure...the insurance refusing to pay vs the government not authorizing isn't something in which I would take much comfort.


I have zero problem with rationing. You're the one who's complaining about rationing.

No! I'm the one complaining about who does the rationing.

But if you don't see anything wrong with rationing, why did you bother to single out the rich folks who can pay the freight? Sounded like a little class envy there.

And you still haven't answered my question: Do you see how there's a fundamental difference between the private and public sectors when it would come to rationing?

Boxcar

TJDave
03-08-2012, 07:53 PM
No! I'm the one complaining about who does the rationing.

But if you don't see anything wrong with rationing, why did you bother to single out the rich folks who can pay the freight? Sounded like a little class envy there.

And you still haven't answered my question: Do you see how there's a fundamental difference between the private and public sectors when it would come to rationing?

Boxcar
If you knew what I pay for health care you wouldn't think me envious of anyone. My point was that health care is rationed now. Also that I care little as to who does the rationing. Simply that care is and will be rationed, regardless.

boxcar
03-08-2012, 08:07 PM
If you knew what I pay for health care you wouldn't think me envious of anyone. My point was that health care is rationed now. Also that I care little as to who does the rationing. Simply that care is and will be rationed, regardless.

And if you knew what you'll be paying once the government takes complete control, you'll be envious for the good ol' days, and probably will sing a very different tune about rationing. The state will redefine all that for you.

Boxcar