Obama: Healthcare debate is "over"

[Accountable]

Economics 101? :24: you actually believe that the price of surgery is high because there is a high demand for a limited resource? :24: again I laugh at you...

You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that a majority of the bills will never be paid or will be paid at a reduced rate? What happens when people don't pay for the medical bills they get? Where does the cost of those surgeries go? What about the reduced rates paid by the insurance companies? Who covers those costs???

My son was born 2 years ago, it was a text book delivery without any complications. 4 hours of labor, no problems with the delivery, no specialists needed and the standard 72 hour stay at the hospital after the birth. Yet the bills amounted to over $50,000.00. We were responsible for $240 in deductibles with the office visits, ultrasounds, etc. and the insurance company (Aetna) paid just over $6,000. So what happened to the rest of the costs? What if I didn't have medical insurance? Would I be responsible for the whole $50k?

$50,000 is a complete and total rip off by any measure and only getting $6,240 is a crime. But to say that the bill was $50k because the doctors and hospitals deserve to be paid that much because of schooling, malpractice insurance rates and supply and demand means you don't know the first thing about economics. The real reason rates are as high as they are has nothing to do with how expensive medical care is or how much they pay in malpractice insurance. It has everything to do with how often they are actually paid for services that they perform. Those who actually pay their bills in full with cash are actually carrying the weight of my freeloading insurance carrier (who I pay near $14,000 a year to in premiums.) or those who would never have enough to pay $50,000 for a birth so they choose to pay nothing at all.
This is why health care is so expensive in this country. This is why we need a change.
I want the health care professionals to be paid well for what they do. And I'm sure that they would do much better if they knew that EVERYTIME they delivered a baby, they would be paid $10k or $12 instead of jacking the price through the roof knowing the insurance companies were only going to pay 10% of the bill.

This looks like an argument to outlaw insurance except for extreme catastrophe. Natural market forces that insurance and gov't interference have fucked up would bring costs back in line with reality.

 

[nova]

Discounts for quick pay from your customers, who would have ever thought of that?

:sarcasm

We do this on a regular business in my occupation, but we offer 1 or 2 points depending on how quick the payment is made. But I challenge you to find any other industry that offers a 87.5% reduction in rate based solely on guaranteed/quick payment.

Like every business out there, if you have X amount of customers that will never pay, you take those losses and incorporate them into your price structure.

A. What does it matter if any other industry does it? All that means is the discount rate for medical services is much higher than it is for your industry.

I have no idea what industry you work in, but I'd venture a guess that the debts you work with are not 100% unsecured, that you'd have a fair chance of recovering your money through the courts if need be. That's not something you can count on with a charge for a service against an individual.

B. They DO incorporate it into the price structure. They just don't spread the losses into their guaranteed payers like insurance, they only spread it into their extended time frame cash payers.

The first hospital my wife was in residency at was done like this. It was a state associated teaching hospital, essentially required to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay. In the last 20 years they've not taken a penny in subsidy from the state because they are priced such that their extended payers picked up the slack for the non-payers. Sucks for them, but thats the price you pay for financing a big unsecured debt.

And as far as my unanswered post... go read the 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford where the Michigan Supreme Court found that Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate the business for profitable purposes as opposed to charitable purposes. This opinion has been used several times in US Supreme Court arguments.

Originally Posted by Henry Ford
"My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business."

This was shot down in the courts....

I'm well aware of Ford V Dodge. Iit doesn't mean what you think it means.

Ford's argument was that he wanted to reduce dividends in order to employ more workers and benefit the community at large, regardless of the impact to shareholders, which was and still is a violation of his fiduciary duty as the corporate manager.

The end results would have been much different had the argument been that he believed the end benefit to the shareholders of expanded production would be greater than paying the dividends.

Ford V Dodge specifically upheld the discretion of corporate management to determine the means by which shareholder value (or profit if you will) is maximized, be it dividends or increases in share value through corporate improvement and expansion.

And excuse the hell out of me for not getting back to you in a timely manner. But I actually work for a living and my family life is much more important than you reply.

Because it would have taken 4.5 hours of hard effort in order to say "Look up Ford V Dodge." Thats why it took you weeks to even acknowledge its existence, all the while producing more long drive by posts, of course :sarcasm

 

[nova]

Man its funny how liberals suddenly become concerned about the ugly effects gov't interference in insurance markets can have when it threatens to crowd out provisions they're in favor of...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/policy/29abortion.html?_r=2&hp

Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

 

[Minor Axis]

Socialism is the Best Medicine.

Most Americans have heard horror stories of long waits for health-care services in other countries. But according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund, Americans wait longer to see primary-care physicians than patients in Britain, Germany, Australia, or New Zealand—all countries with strong public-health systems.

With an interesting ending:

The disparity between primary and elective care, says Davis, is mostly due to a shortage of primary-care docs in the U.S.; we produce more specialists because specialists earn a lot more.