Neurosurgeon revealing startling facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wsnHGI5K-E

Over 70 ............ you're a "unit"

Change we can believe in ........

I see people complaining about insurance costs, and doctors complaining about being able to make enough to stay in business. If our healthcare is so damn expensive, then where is all the money going? Sure, we pay way too much for prescription drugs, but that's only part of the equation. I can only assume the medical equipment (for all those expensive tests and procedures) must be similarly overpriced to drugs.

gut;1051500 wrote:I see people complaining about insurance costs, and doctors complaining about being able to make enough to stay in business. If our healthcare is so damn expensive, then where is all the money going? Sure, we pay way too much for prescription drugs, but that's only part of the equation. I can only assume the medical equipment (for all those expensive tests and procedures) must be similarly overpriced to drugs.

Lawsuits and insurance to protect against lawsuits also take a huge amount of the money.

Footwedge;1051341 wrote:Touche....you win....My health care premiums will continue to rise...in order to follow the letter of the Constitutional law.

If you think the constitution is the problem there is a way to change it. I know that pesky little process is just too hard. Its so much easier to ignore it. Obama is learning how easy it is too with his latest "recess" appointment.

Footwedge;1051341 wrote:Either that...or we can let the sick poor fuggers die of cancer...then my insurance costs will remain lower!

This idea that if the federal central planners are not laying it out for us people will be dying in the streets is a gigantic load of bullshit. There are state and local governments. But not just that the people. The locals. The people have compassion and take care of their fellow human beings voluntarily. Even those that fugged up. Spaghetti dinners, cornhole tournaments, bike runs, or just a jar at a local cash register. Local chuches and businesses chip in as well. A massive bureaucracy is not necessary to meet peoples needs.

I am not sure what kind of community you live in. But I don't think it is one that will watch its fellow human die in the streets. I am not sure how the federal govenment got the monopoly on compassion.

Footwedge;1051341 wrote:My health care premiums will continue to rise...in order to follow the letter of the Constitutional law.

Your terrorist threat will continue to rise...in order to follow the letter of the Constitutional law.

majorspark;1051674 wrote:Your terrorist threat will continue to rise...in order to follow the letter of the Constitutional law.

The terrorist threat will decrease if we follow the Constitution. Occupying their lands and propping up the dictators that torture and brutalize them certainly isn't making us any friends.

Cleveland Buck;1051703 wrote:The terrorist threat will decrease if we follow the Constitution.

I was being sarcastic too make a point. Perhaps our health care premiums would decrease if we followed the Constitution.

Cleveland Buck;1051703 wrote:Occupying their lands and propping up the dictators that torture and brutalize them certainly isn't making us any friends.

Well some of them seem to be throwing off their dictators. When it comes to our foreign endevours we have not always follow the Constitution either. The Constitution is not about making friends with anyone. In fact following it will piss a lot of people off both foreign and domestic.

Al Bundy;1051518 wrote:Lawsuits and insurance to protect against lawsuits also take a huge amount of the money.

Forgot about that. Great point, and it also is a key driver of unnecessary tests, which only further escalates the costs since our insurance premiums have to account for that.

Lets not forget that many Americans expect their health insurance to cover minor incidences as well. Insurance is for catastrophic incidences. I purchase high deductable insurance. Low premiums and high out of pocket expense when minor healthcare issues arise. It really gets one to check cost.

For instance: My son a few years back likely broke his finger. We took him to the local doc. He prescribed Xrays at the local hospital. My wife and I had been through this before. We knew the score. Broken finger = splint and tape for a few weeks and several follow ups. Xrays would have cost a couple of hundred and follow ups 50+. We assumed it was an obvious minor break. Went to the local drug store and bought a splint and tape. Cost <10$. Kept the finger in the splint for several weeks and walla he was good as new.

Same son broke his arm on Thanksgiving. Took him for Xrays and he had a minor break in the forearm. The doc cast him up a few days later when the swelling subsided. Of course follow ups were prescribed. None needed and we removed the cast ourselves after about six weeks. Arm is as good as new. I am sure I would have spent someone elses money differently.

We need more Americans like you majorspark. Reps.

majorspark;1051617 wrote:I am not sure what kind of community you live in. But I don't think it is one that will watch its fellow human die in the streets. I am not sure how the federal govenment got the monopoly on compassion.

Nahh....my church would never pony up 80K for cancer treatments...not too many other churches would either.

Footwedge;1051845 wrote:Nahh....my church would never pony up 80K for cancer treatments...not too many other churches would either.

Neither would mine. Its a team effort. The local community organizes fund raisers. Businesses, churches, and individuals all take part. Medical providers are more than willing to work with individuals that find themselves SOL. Payment schedule and reduced cost they are more than happy to accomodate.

I have more trust in the of hands of my local community than I would any federal bureaucracy that has its balls firmly in the grip of a central lobbying firm.

sleeper;1051841 wrote:We need more Americans like you majorspark. Reps.

While he seems smart and informed, as an insurance company 100 such people won't offset the cost of the 1 idiot who doesn't know better resulting in an amputation.

And what majorspark said is certainly not incompatible with competent care, but as mentioned earlier doctors ere on the side of caution prescribing unnecessary tests.

Nevertheless, great lesson in prudent money management. If I had to buy my own insurance, it's a good route to go. Of course, the trick is knowing when you can "self-diagnose" and "self-treat" and when you need a professional opinion.

So it is her employer's fault she didn't have insurance? Get a job that offers insurance then, stupid bitch! Or, since you knew you didn't have insurance, you should have bought insurance for yourself. God people are so ignorant.

dwccrew;1052116 wrote:So it is her employer's fault she didn't have insurance? Get a job that offers insurance then, stupid bitch! Or, since you knew you didn't have insurance, you should have bought insurance for yourself. God people are so ignorant.

A single person in their 20's or 30's (or perhaps almost any single person) should prefer to get their health benefits as salary rather than subsidize those with families. I figure you are talking maybe $400 a month for the average family of 4. Theoretically it works out for you when you have a family down the road and IF you remain with the same company or go to another with equivalent benefits. That's a lot of money for a single person likely earlier in their career and making much less money than down the road. Heck, consider a recent college grad that gets a decent job paying $40k - they SHOULD, in theory, be getting about $5k more but it goes to subsidize those with families at their company.

We probably would be better off just getting the extra salary rather than the "free" benefits. A husband & wife who both have health plans also are losing out since you would prefer one be able to take salary in lieu of the unneeded benefit (although they still come out ahead vs. single people).

gut;1051883 wrote:And what majorspark said is certainly not incompatible with competent care, but as mentioned earlier doctors ere on the side of caution prescribing unnecessary tests.

Because they're afraid of frivolous malpractice lawsuits maybe? Tort reform.

Cleveland Buck;1051703 wrote:The terrorist threat will decrease if we follow the Constitution. Occupying their lands and propping up the dictators that torture and brutalize them certainly isn't making us any friends.

Where did I get the idea that Bush went in and 'de-propped up' a tortuous, barbaric dicator who brutalized his own people. I must be thinking of something else.

I do like the elimination of the pre-existing condition thing. That's an evil idea in my book. With that being said why is health insurance a right? I don't want to sound cold but I am a 20 year old guy with a complete health care plan. I literally only pay $20 for ER visits and all my prescriptions are free. However I work hard for my money and think I deserve it, girl that's 34 and can't get a job doesn't

Classyposter58;1054948 wrote:I do like the elimination of the pre-existing condition thing. That's an evil idea in my book.

The problem with eliminating pre-existing conditions is that there is nothing to stop someone from not having health insurance until they get sick. Then they get insurance and the insurance company is on the hook for all their expenses without them having contributed up until the point they became sick.

Classyposter58;1054948 wrote:With that being said why is health insurance a right?

I agree

She couldn't afford insurance, but I'll bet she had $100 a month for smartphone.

believer;1053047 wrote:Because they're afraid of frivolous malpractice lawsuits maybe? Tort reform.

We've talked about this dozens of times, so it's probably not worth rehshing the whole argument. Malpractice insurance/claims aren't a big driver of costs. It's difficult to evaluate the impact of uneccessary tests, but comparing tort reform states vs others seems to indicate that it isn't a big deal. Id be happy to see data suggesting otherwise, but to date, what I've seen suggests that legal expenses are not a big cost driver.

Health care costs go up because (1) technological advance is expensive, (2) people view healthcare as a right and overuse it while socializing the burden, and (3) lots of money is spent on expensive end of life procedures.

We can reduce quality. We can increase out-of-pocket expenses so people are wiser about use. We can provide end of life counseling. Other than doing these things, I don't see how we're going to reign in costs.

fan_from_texas;1055818 wrote:Health care costs go up because (1) technological advance is expensive, (2) people view healthcare as a right and overuse it while socializing the burden, and (3) lots of money is spent on expensive end of life procedures.

We can reduce quality. We can increase out-of-pocket expenses so people are wiser about use. We can provide end of life counseling. Other than doing these things, I don't see how we're going to reign in costs.

Are there any studies on how countries with socialized medicine currently handle this?

FatHobbit;1055896 wrote:Are there any studies on how countries with socialized medicine currently handle this?

Other countries free ride on our technological innovation. By keeping research costs down, they can offer "good enough" healthcare at a much lower price.

The so-called "death panels" and "end of life counseling" are other ways to keep down life-end costs. Of course, in countries like England, what you don't pay for in money you pay for in time: you queue up for a long time to get access to care that in the US you can get much faster. It's another form of rationing, we're just trading time for money so everyone theoretically has equal access.

fan_from_texas;1055905 wrote:Other countries free ride on our technological innovation. By keeping research costs down, they can offer "good enough" healthcare at a much lower price.

That makes sense.

fan_from_texas;1055905 wrote:The so-called "death panels" and "end of life counseling" are other ways to keep down life-end costs. Of course, in countries like England, what you don't pay for in money you pay for in time: you queue up for a long time to get access to care that in the US you can get much faster. It's another form of rationing, we're just trading time for money so everyone theoretically has equal access.

My father in law is German. He had lung cancer and when he went to get treated they told him he could not have a room. He could have a bed in the hallway. I know it's only one case, but it's the only actual instance I know of someone in a foreign country needing serious health care.

With things like drugs, billions of dollars are spent on research. Actual production costs are pretty low. People look at how expensive it is to produce some drug and argue that if the marginal cost is low, the price should be low. But it doesn't work that way: the pharma company needs to recover its total costs, and that's going to come out through its average total cost being much higher than the marginal cost for a long time. Because of different IP laws in other countries, though, the pharmas end up selling at much lower costs elsewhere, and as long as the revenue exceeds their marginal cost, they come out ahead.

It's a bit of a mess, but it's also the only way to ensure continued research success.