I'd be curious to read the studies you have to support this claim. In the research that I've read/studied, technological change is the biggest reason for cost increases of healthcare.
New Krugman piece - The Medicare Miracle
- Thread starter TownieDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I'd be curious to read the studies you have to support this claim. In the research that I've read/studied, technological change is the biggest reason for cost increases of healthcare.
What studies do you need? Insurance companies don't provide services. They provide costs. When was the last time an insurance company gave you a physical? When was the last time an insurance clerk cleaned a bedpan in a hospital or did a surgery?
What's even more egregious is how they have kowtowed to big pharma and allowed Americans to be ripped off so grotesquely by RX costs. It's outrageous that people in Mexico, Canada, France and other countries pay 1/3 to 1/2 of what we do for the same medications.
Every dollar that goes to insurance company profits, marketing and overhead is taken from doctors, nurses, meds and hospitals.
What's even more egregious is how they have kowtowed to big pharma and allowed Americans to be ripped off so grotesquely by RX costs. It's outrageous that people in Mexico, Canada, France and other countries pay 1/3 to 1/2 of what we do for the same medications.
Every dollar that goes to insurance company profits, marketing and overhead is taken from doctors, nurses, meds and hospitals.
BillBrasky
#PSF
I'm sure they provide something to consumers, but there is no way in hell that it is remotely financially beneficial to the general public.
Last edited:
tjcmd
Retired
Insurance companies don't provide services? I assume then that you don't have insurance on your home or your life or your car because insurance agents don't come over and straighten out your fenders. You need to find out more about real insurance.
tjcmd
Retired
People who smoke weed would not be able to rent a trailer if the owner could not insure the trailer against fires caused by weed smoking. So there's that.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
Transfer Of Risk
Related Searches: What Is Covered under Homeowners Insurance?, Insurance Terms, Homeowners Insurance, Insurance Company Ratings, Insurance Companies Directory
Definition of 'Transfer Of Risk'
The underlying tenet behind insurance transactions. The purpose of this action is to take a specific risk, which is detailed in the insurance contract, and pass it from one party who does not wish to have this risk (the insured) to a party who is willing to take on the risk for a fee, or premium (the insurer).
Investopedia explains 'Transfer Of Risk'
For example, whenever someone purchases home insurance, he or she is essentially paying an insurance company to take the risk involved with owning a home. In the event that something does happen to the house, such as property damage from a fire or natural disaster, the insurance company will be responsible for dealing with any resulting consequences.
In today's financial marketplace, insurance instruments have grown more and more intricate and complex, but the transfer of risk is the one requirement that is always met in any insurance contract.
Related Searches: What Is Covered under Homeowners Insurance?, Insurance Terms, Homeowners Insurance, Insurance Company Ratings, Insurance Companies Directory
Definition of 'Transfer Of Risk'
The underlying tenet behind insurance transactions. The purpose of this action is to take a specific risk, which is detailed in the insurance contract, and pass it from one party who does not wish to have this risk (the insured) to a party who is willing to take on the risk for a fee, or premium (the insurer).
Investopedia explains 'Transfer Of Risk'
For example, whenever someone purchases home insurance, he or she is essentially paying an insurance company to take the risk involved with owning a home. In the event that something does happen to the house, such as property damage from a fire or natural disaster, the insurance company will be responsible for dealing with any resulting consequences.
In today's financial marketplace, insurance instruments have grown more and more intricate and complex, but the transfer of risk is the one requirement that is always met in any insurance contract.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
The "drug development occurs here therefore our drugs are a thousand times more expensive" justification is such a sham.
Yes I am aware that drugs are tremendously expensive to develop, tremendously time consuming, and tremendously difficult to get approved.
Yes I am aware that drugs are tremendously expensive to develop, tremendously time consuming, and tremendously difficult to get approved.
Last edited:
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
pour,
Would you care to provide something, anything, that explains why "genetic diversity" drives up healthcare costs? Or is that just your opinion?
Where do you get the idea that "massive immigration" has an impact? The US population is 13% foreign born, France is 11.1%, the UK is 8.3% (with many, many very diverse domestic born citizens from around the Commonwealth), and Germany is 12%, the highest in the EU. https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrant+population+of+france&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=immigrant+population+of+france&aqs=chrome..69i57.9654j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrant+population+of+the+us&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=immigrant+population+of+the+us&aqs=chrome..69i57.4874j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdomhttp://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/germany-population/So tell me again how "massive immigration" in the US has a bearing on the cost of medical care - other than the obvious, which is the refusal of the US to adopt universal health care means that the immigrants, and other poorer populations, generally seek care from expensive ER settings and can't manage their chronic illnesses. As usual, you post opinions without any evidence to back them up.
As for the argument that our healthcare is expensive because we are subsidizing innovation for the rest of the world, that doesn't hold much water either. First, the US is behind several other nations in patents per capita or patents/GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Indicators Therefore it is not entirely clear that, when our population and economy size is taken into account, we're all that much more innovative than other societies. It is also not clear how much high medical industry profits play into the US lead in biomedicine - what percentage of our biomedicine edge comes from high profits, vs. massive government investment in universities and basic research since WWII? You have to answer these questions before simply asserting as fact the idea that high profits = innovation.
Second, the price that we pay for drugs and medical devices is not some magical working of the invisible hand of the market. It's a public policy decision. Our elected leaders, bought and paid for by industry lobbyists, have decided that the American taxpayer and consumer will pay huge amounts to Big Pharma and Big Device - and it's not like the massive amount we overpay for these products is just barely helping Big Pharma and Big Device scrape by. They're some of the most profitable businesses in America by fairly wide margins, especially Big Device. That is so even though they are selling at low prices to more efficient health systems elsewhere - which they are in no way obligated to do. If they are losing money in those markets, why are they selling into them? In fact, they are perfectly happy to make good money selling into France, and REALLY happy to make HUGE money selling in the US.
Third, Big Pharma and Big Device want you to believe that if they don't make $Texas, they can't develop new drugs. Strange, then, that almost all pharmaceutical companies allocate way more of their revenue to marketing and profit than they do to R&D. http://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/ They also regularly issue greatly inflated claims about the costs of R&D. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.1.html
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348
If you want to believe the sky will fall line that Big Pharma is selling you, go ahead. But you ought to look at some real numbers before forming that opinion.
Would you care to provide something, anything, that explains why "genetic diversity" drives up healthcare costs? Or is that just your opinion?
Where do you get the idea that "massive immigration" has an impact? The US population is 13% foreign born, France is 11.1%, the UK is 8.3% (with many, many very diverse domestic born citizens from around the Commonwealth), and Germany is 12%, the highest in the EU. https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrant+population+of+france&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=immigrant+population+of+france&aqs=chrome..69i57.9654j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrant+population+of+the+us&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS504US504&oq=immigrant+population+of+the+us&aqs=chrome..69i57.4874j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdomhttp://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/germany-population/So tell me again how "massive immigration" in the US has a bearing on the cost of medical care - other than the obvious, which is the refusal of the US to adopt universal health care means that the immigrants, and other poorer populations, generally seek care from expensive ER settings and can't manage their chronic illnesses. As usual, you post opinions without any evidence to back them up.
As for the argument that our healthcare is expensive because we are subsidizing innovation for the rest of the world, that doesn't hold much water either. First, the US is behind several other nations in patents per capita or patents/GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Indicators Therefore it is not entirely clear that, when our population and economy size is taken into account, we're all that much more innovative than other societies. It is also not clear how much high medical industry profits play into the US lead in biomedicine - what percentage of our biomedicine edge comes from high profits, vs. massive government investment in universities and basic research since WWII? You have to answer these questions before simply asserting as fact the idea that high profits = innovation.
Second, the price that we pay for drugs and medical devices is not some magical working of the invisible hand of the market. It's a public policy decision. Our elected leaders, bought and paid for by industry lobbyists, have decided that the American taxpayer and consumer will pay huge amounts to Big Pharma and Big Device - and it's not like the massive amount we overpay for these products is just barely helping Big Pharma and Big Device scrape by. They're some of the most profitable businesses in America by fairly wide margins, especially Big Device. That is so even though they are selling at low prices to more efficient health systems elsewhere - which they are in no way obligated to do. If they are losing money in those markets, why are they selling into them? In fact, they are perfectly happy to make good money selling into France, and REALLY happy to make HUGE money selling in the US.
Third, Big Pharma and Big Device want you to believe that if they don't make $Texas, they can't develop new drugs. Strange, then, that almost all pharmaceutical companies allocate way more of their revenue to marketing and profit than they do to R&D. http://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/ They also regularly issue greatly inflated claims about the costs of R&D. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_customer/2011/03/the_makebelieve_billion.1.html
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348
If you want to believe the sky will fall line that Big Pharma is selling you, go ahead. But you ought to look at some real numbers before forming that opinion.
tjcmd
Retired
The way to control health care costs has been known for a long time:
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-health-care-costs-too-much
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/why-health-care-costs-too-much
Deacon923
Scooter Banks
tjcmd
Retired
Still true today. WITH A GUN.
HEALTH INSURANCE......I didn't say anything about other insurance companies......we could buy from one pool and not need them at all.
tjcmd
Retired
I don't think so unless you go full communist. Even in "single payer" countries private insurance pops up to price the risks the government cannot or will not foist onto the taxpayer. Not everybody wants to beg a government bureaucrat to grant their children some specialized treatment.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
So perhaps somebody with more direct knowledge can comment on this...
My doctor, who doesn't strike me as any kind of raging Republican, is not a fan of Obamacare. He complains that it attempts to cut costs by paying doctors less, rather than cutting the inefficiencies and payments for things like medical equipment, which he views as an enormous leach in the system and a big problem with costs. He finds now that the Medicare money is going in clumps to the hospitals rather than private practice, in effect squeezing out the private practitioner. He says that this has led the hospitals to encourage their doctors to discourage some treatments they would otherwise do in order to profit from the massive government payouts. They have X amount of $ granted for Medicare, and they have incentive to use less than X amount.
It would appear to me that this is an extremely predictable consequence of such an action. It will be interesting to see where this goes further down the road, as denial of certain services can and will most certainly lead many people croaking when they didn't have to. It's like a death panel, but who is to blame in this case? The greedy hospitals or the government policy that shifts all the money into those hospitals and away from the family practice?
My doctor, who doesn't strike me as any kind of raging Republican, is not a fan of Obamacare. He complains that it attempts to cut costs by paying doctors less, rather than cutting the inefficiencies and payments for things like medical equipment, which he views as an enormous leach in the system and a big problem with costs. He finds now that the Medicare money is going in clumps to the hospitals rather than private practice, in effect squeezing out the private practitioner. He says that this has led the hospitals to encourage their doctors to discourage some treatments they would otherwise do in order to profit from the massive government payouts. They have X amount of $ granted for Medicare, and they have incentive to use less than X amount.
It would appear to me that this is an extremely predictable consequence of such an action. It will be interesting to see where this goes further down the road, as denial of certain services can and will most certainly lead many people croaking when they didn't have to. It's like a death panel, but who is to blame in this case? The greedy hospitals or the government policy that shifts all the money into those hospitals and away from the family practice?
tjcmd
Retired
Government is now trying to lump sum everything to large providers who can then squeeze their employed physicians. It won't save any money, of course, because big providers lobby well and manipulate data well, but it will squeeze out private physicians from Medicare.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/aco-debacle-exposes-obamacares-fatal-conceit
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/aco-debacle-exposes-obamacares-fatal-conceit