The GOP’s health crisis

[F3SS]

Hence my brackets [ ]. But it is something and it is different so.... But we can agree that difference for the sake of difference can be redundant or ineffectual.

Edited February 15, 2014 by F3SS

[Guest]

I seem to recall that the original better plans were torpedoed by a certain republican party. As I see it - you could have had better if that hadn't been the case.

Br Cornelius

[Harte]

That IS the real question isn't it? I can sum that up in one all encompassing word...Greed.

Med students pay ridiculous tuitions that force them to charge high rates for office visits in order to pay for their education and the educations of their staff.

Malpractice insurance is a scam...costs a fortune, is abused most of the time and lines the pockets of the malpractice insurers stockholders and backers.

Big Pharma rapes the people by not ever curing anything...only making it "manageable illness".

Hospitals charge an arm and a leg to pay for their board of directors and staff...

Medical supply companies charge an arm and a leg because the hospitals and doctors can afford it (this is such circular retardedness I can't even explain it)

Our medical system is way past broken but instead of fixing the roots, they dodge and create new ways to ignore a serious problem...healthcare and "life" should not come at a price tag that only the rich and wealthy can afford...but I guess it's a new form of population control...

inB4..."omg...why can't they make a vulgar profit"...profit is not the problem...unbridled greed is the problem...in healthcare and just about every other walk of life. Luxury things and unnecessary accessories...charge out the @ss for them, I do not care...but necessities of life...that is a different animal to true "human beings"...

Profit margins:

Hospitals:

The 7.2% net margin on $730.9 billion in net revenue, tallied in the 2012 AHA Hospital Statistics guide released last week, was the highest in decades. The results compare with $34.4 billion in profit in 2009 for a 5% profit margin on $690.5 billion in net revenue.

2012

Medical device makers:

Medical products and equipment - 16.3%

2009

Insurance:

Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent.

2009

Drug companies:

According to Yahoo! Finance’s industry summary, the average profit margin for generic drug companies as of April 2013 is 5.4 percent. The largest average profit margin is for major drug manufacturers at 18.4 percent. This group includes Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. For the "other drug manufacturers" category, which includes Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Allergan, the average margin drops to 12.2 percent.

2013

Restaurants:

McDonald’s. 2012 profit: $5.5 billion; profit margin: 19.8%.

Starbucks (SBUX): $1.4 billion; 10.4%

Dunkin’ Brands (DNKN) (Dunkin’ Donuts, Baskin Robbins): $108 million; 16.5%

2012

High-end restaurants:

...high-end restaurants earn, on average, a profit margin of just 8%.

2013

I don't see where any healthcare-related industry is out of line with profits. That is, unless one is willing to protest that McDonalds should be giving away kids meals to anyone that needs them.

Harte

[Guest]

So Harte the flaws in your system are much deeper than just profiteering - that must be reassuring.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

Without 'profiteers' where would the capital to invest in R&D come from?

[Jeremiah65]

As I said...there is absolutely nothing wrong with profit...I happen to like it myself.

When you throw out statistical numbers like that, it sure does help support a particular idea ...but in truth, those are worthless numbers...and most people know that. Those are "net profits"...i.e...what they paid taxes on. That doesn't include the "costs of doing business"...which can be elaborate dinners, corporate meetings in lavish motels, also salaries, bonuses and benefits to executives and senior board members. I can take a profit...apply the "cost of doing business" and make it look terrible...not have to pay a lot on taxes...and live it up all at the same time. Golf outing anyone? It's business you know...

So...what does that mean?...it means those numbers are worthless and put out there for the gov tax workers and the sheep stupid enough to believe them...

As expected...the point was missed and/or ignored...the problem is not profits...the problem is the giant hole running through the middle of us all...no amount of money or drugs or alcohol or sex or cats or christmas ornaments or money will ever fill that up...what are you shoving in your empty place?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[Guest]

Without 'profiteers' where would the capital to invest in R&D come from?

Most of the really worthwhile research has been done in public universities and institution - so in a word - from the Government as easily as from corporations.

There is nothing magical about getting your money from corporations to do original research. The intrinsic value of Government funded research is that more people can benefit from it at lower cost. There was an interesting battle over the human genome research project regarding public vs private funding, and we would all be paying more if the private side had won the argument.#

It is a real fundamental flaw in your world view to think that profit is the only motivator of many bright and gifted people doing important research. Many just want to do good and get paid a fair wage.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 16, 2014 by Guest

[F3SS]

Research is often inspired out of curiosity. It's the development phase that requires risk and investment.

[Guest]

Research is often inspired out of curiosity. It's the development phase that requires risk and investment.

Which the universities are quite willing to pursue if they get a modicum of funding.

Try to slice it any way you like - it doesn't take private industry to undertake research - otherwise the military would never of got those nuclear toys.

It would actually be mature of you to admit this simple fact.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

Which the universities are quite willing to pursue if they get a modicum of funding.

Try to slice it any way you like - it doesn't take private industry to undertake research - otherwise the military would never of got those nuclear toys.

It would actually be mature of you to admit this simple fact.

Br Cornelius

I just did in the post you quoted.

[Guest]

I just did in the post you quoted.

It didn't sound like it to me.

Br Cornelius

[F3SS]

It didn't sound like it to me.

Br Cornelius

Research is often inspired out of curiosity. It's the development phase that requires risk and investment.

Do you see it now? How about the difference between those two sentences? Do you see that?

[Harte]

So Harte the flaws in your system are much deeper than just profiteering - that must be reassuring.

Br Cornelius

LOL

My post indicates that profiteering doesn't enter into it at all. Yet, I note that you use the phrase "just profiteering."

Now, I certainly wouldn't claim that individual instances of profiteering don't occur. However, it is plain that this, viewed overall, is not part of the so-called "problem" in any way.

No, the "problem" is that individuals don't live up to their own responsibilities. For whatever reason.

Harte

[Guest]

LOL

My post indicates that profiteering doesn't enter into it at all. Yet, I note that you use the phrase "just profiteering."

Now, I certainly wouldn't claim that individual instances of profiteering don't occur. However, it is plain that this, viewed overall, is not part of the so-called "problem" in any way.

No, the "problem" is that individuals don't live up to their own responsibilities. For whatever reason.

Harte

Nothing structural then

Br Cornelius

[Harte]

If I was forced to comment, I'd say the structuring of the healthcare system here, being predicated on people buying insurance, is a reasonable thing.

Where it becomes unreasonable is when people can't afford insurance.

The estimates of the number of people without insurance (prior to Obamacare) were always phrased in a way to make it seem that these people were poor, hardworking people that just can't pay the bill. The fact is, the majority were without insurance by free choice.

And they still are.

Note that the class of uninsured is not filled with permanently uninsured people, there is turnover in the group like in any other classification.

Having or not having a health insurance policy for a time period appears not to impact the overall health of a person. Going your entire life without it probably does. But there is no study that indicates this.

The choice is far from clear regarding "universal" healthcare, however. Such systems create their own demonstrable problems and can lead to worse health for the population.

Harte

[RavenHawk]

There is nothing wrong with making profits...but deep down inside, we all know what the problem is...there should be a point where "enough is enough"...but the modern mental illness of wealth hoarding has no limits...and say what you want...wealth hoarding is just as real of a mental illness as hoarding cats or drug and alcohol addiction...it's that empty hole that runs through the middle of people and no amount of drugs or alcohol or cats or money can ever fill that hole.

Wealth hording is a reaction to the threat of wealth redistribution. What more is there to say? Get rid of that threat and things will change. And for the better.

[Guest]

So Harte, you don't think its an issue that the per capita cost of healthcare in the USA is twice that of almost any other health care system who advocate a universal health insurance.

I would accept you points to a certain extent but I firmly believe that you are deliberately looking past the elephant in the room here.

If it could deliver cheaper health care - as the rhetoric claims - we could all agree that it had its intrinsic value as a provider of public services - but it doesn't so we can't. The tragedy is that there has been a concerted campaign in the UK to demonize the highly efficient NHS so that a system similar to the American model can replace it - all in the false name of efficiency. Fortunately the British public are not quite so foolish to buy the line and so the Government is doing it by stealth without public consent.

The reality is that the ACA will stick because a nation cannot live with the fear that ill health will leave you in a state of destitution. Eventually you will move to a universal health insurance system - because it will save your nation money which is ultimately what drives these things. If you don't like it there will always remain the option to pay a premium to jump the queue.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 17, 2014 by Guest

[RavenHawk]

The NHS does a better job than the American system - providing all of the essentials - at cost.

The government can’t provide anything. It only takes.

[Guest]

Wealth hording is a reaction to the threat of wealth redistribution. What more is there to say? Get rid of that threat and things will change. And for the better.

More prayers to your God. It would all just sort itself out if we took away all controls on wealth - I see that magic hand and its coming to smit you down.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

The government can't provide anything. It only takes.

Try engaging the fact that the Government does actually do these things and it costs the citizenry less as a consequence.

Faith, faith Faith, you've gotta have faith (George Michael).

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

More prayers to your God.

You *ARE* deranged.

It would all just sort itself out if we took away all controls on wealth - I see that magic hand and its coming to smit you down.

You obviously do not understand what the “Invisible Hand” means. That is to be expected from a Socialist. That’s why one is a Socialist. I never have stated that all control be removed, but I do realize that you need to say that so that you can think that your argument has half a chance. There still needs to be "some" control.

[Harte]

So Harte, you don't think its an issue that the per capita cost of healthcare in the USA is twice that of almost any other health care system who advocate a universal health insurance.

I would accept you points to a certain extent but I firmly believe that you are deliberately looking past the elephant in the room here.

Possibly. I prefer to think of it as avoiding adding a hundred more elephants to the room:

Only five out of 51 hospital trusts pass hygiene test, say inspectors

- Sarah Boseley, November 24, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]

Heart patients dying due to poor hospital care, says report

- Sarah Boseley, June 8, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]

NHS dentistry loses almost a million patients after new dentists' contract

- David Rose, June 6, 2008 [The Times]

Private healthcare managers could be sent to turn round failing NHS hospitals

- Philip Webster, Political Editor, and David Rose, June 4, 2008 [The Times]

Cancer patients ‘betrayed’ by NHS

- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]

NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay

- Sarah-Kate Templeton, June 1, 2008 [The Times]

Pensioner, 76, forced to pull out own teeth after 12 NHS dentists refuse to treat her

- Olinka Koster, March 26, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]

Dental patients face care lottery

- March 26, 2008 [Metro(UK)]

Lung patients 'condemned to death as NHS withdraws their too expensive drugs'

- Jenny Hope, March 24, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]

Women in labour turned away by maternity units

- John Carvel, March 21, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]

Health inequality has got worse under Labour, says government report

- Andrew Sparrow, March 13, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]

Angry GPs reluctantly accept plan for weekend and evening surgeries

- John Carvel, March 7, 2008 [Guardian Unlimited]

NHS chiefs tell grandmother, 61, she's 'too old' for £5,000 life-saving heart surgery

- Chris Brooke, February 28, 2008 [Daily Mail(UK)]

Patient 'removed' from waiting list to meet target

- January 31, 2008 [The Scotsman]

One in eight patients waiting over a year for treatment, admits minister

- John Carvel, June 8, 2007 [Guardian Unlimited]

That is a very small sampling - limited by me to save space- of actual headlines regarding the British system from the webpage I linked earlier.

To me, the first concern when fixing a thing is to try and ensure you don't break it even more.

The reality is that the ACA will stick because a nation cannot live with the fear that ill health will leave you in a state of destitution. Eventually you will move to a universal health insurance system - because it will save your nation money which is ultimately what drives these things. If you don't like it there will always remain the option to pay a premium to jump the queue.

Br Cornelius

I can't agree with the above, since nations have existed for quite some time - still do - without universal health care.

I'm sure that some sort of system will survive, though. I doubt it will look very much like the present one.

Let us not forget that most U.S. healthcare, even before Obamacare, was already covered by government programs.

Harte

[RavenHawk]

Try engaging the fact that the Government does actually do these things and it costs the citizenry less as a consequence.

You just aren’t seeing what the consequences are. Government can only redistribute someone else’s wealth. Because of that the government creates dependency. Government tramples Rights. Government enslaves. Are a few bobbles worth that price? I’ll put my faith in freedom and the hardships of life.

[Guest]

You just aren't seeing what the consequences are. Government can only redistribute someone else's wealth. Because of that the government creates dependency. Government tramples Rights. Government enslaves. Are a few bobbles worth that price? I'll put my faith in freedom and the hardships of life.

Ultimately the point is the consumer pays - its either in Insurance premiums or in taxes. It amounts to the same thing - apart from the fact that one costs twice that of the other, and guess which one is the more expensive. It is only ideology that blinds you to the fact that Governments do some things better than the Free Market.

PS - I am going to make it a habit of ridiculing you whenever you make a faith based statement without supporting evidence. I assure you it will be a challenge to remain original, and equally as tedious for me as for you - but some things are worth doing right. Hopefully one day you will realize how much of your statements are pure faith based.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Unfortunately the NHS has been under stealth attack since Margaret Thatchers time (with no let up under the supposedly socialist labour Party). I am certain you realize anyone could list an equal number of horror stories derived from the USA - but probably more death would be involved. The NHS has been served very badly by Governments more wedded to NeoLiberalism than the founding charter of the NHS, and for that we all suffer a little. However overall the health outcomes in Britain are the same as those in America.

Br Cornelius