Americans' greatest financial worry? Cost of healthcare
« prev   misc   next »
1   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 26, 6:46am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

It's not the cost of healthcare that worries me, I'm just fine with dying in the streets, as long as the alternative is getting ripped off by health insurance companies, their political patronage networks, and the simple simon motherfuckers that continue to vote for people that force this hell upon us.

2   APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE   ignore (5)   2017 Jun 26, 7:03am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Everyone is FREE! to acquire all the armaments they need to blow their brains out, if the agony of sickness and injury proves too much - and you are FREE! to move to a low-tax state to get what you need to find relief.

And everyone is FREE! buy a hospital.

Any dissatisfaction with this perfect order is the invention of a twisted and resentful mind.

3   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2017 Jun 26, 10:08am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Yeah, if it's going to cost me $1600/month for a health insurance policy if I want to retire in my early 60's (before medicare kicks in) then I'm going to keep working.

4   errc   ignore (2)   2017 Jun 26, 10:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Only 1600 per month?

5   Tenpoundbass   ignore (6)   2017 Jun 26, 10:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says

and the simple simon motherfuckers that continue to vote for people that force this hell upon us.

6   BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 4, 3:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Why market competition has not brought down health care costs

It is easier than ever to buy stuff. You can purchase almost anything on Amazon with a click, and it is only slightly harder to find a place to stay in a foreign city on Airbnb.

So why can’t we pay for health care the same way?

Research into the economics of health care suggests we should be able to do just that, but only if we say goodbye to our current system of private insurance – and the heavy administrative burden that goes along with it. Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would take us in the wrong direction.

In a way, the reason buying health care is different than shopping for a garden gnome or short-term apartment seems obvious. Picking the right doctor, for example, involves a lot more anxiety and uncertainty and concerns matters of life and death.

But that’s not really the reason we can’t purchase health care the same way we buy an iPhone. In 1969, this would almost be true (for a rotary phone anyway). Back then, the bill for a birth in a New Jersey hospital looked a lot like the receipt you’d get for buying pretty much anything else: customer name, amount and a box to be checked for payment by check, charge or money order.

Today, paying for even the simplest office visit can become a nightmare, requiring insurance preauthorization, reimbursements adjusted for in-network or out-of-network copays and deductibles and the physician “tier” (or how your prospective doctor is evaluated for cost and quality by the insurance company).

Prescriptions require even more authorizations, while follow-up care necessitates coordinated review – and it goes without saying that many forms will have to be completed. And this doesn’t end when you arrive at the doctor’s office. A large chunk of any visit is spent with a beleaguered nurse, or even the physician, filling out a required checklist of insurance-mandated questions.

The growing complexity of health care finance explains why it’s becoming more and more expensive even though there has been little or no improvement in quality. Since 1971, the share of our national income spent on health care has doubled.

We can blame a significant part of the soaring cost of health care on the ever-increasing burden of administrative complexity, whose cost has climbed at a pace of more than 10 percent a year since 1971 and now consumes over 4 percent of GDP, up from less than 1 percent back then.

Clearly, our experiment in market-driven health care has gone awry.

Before we introduced competition and deregulation into health care, things were relatively simple, with most revenue going to providers. We could save a lot of money if we went backwards and adopted a single-payer system like Canada’s, where insurers do not engage in systematic preauthorization or utilization review and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies do not form monopolies to profit at the expense of the public.

Largely by reducing administrative costs within the insurance industry and to providers, a single-payer program could save enough money to provide health care to all Americans.

Compared with Canada’s single payer system, American doctors and hospitals have nearly twice as many administrative staff workers.

So whether the ACA remains in force or it’s replaced by something else, I believe we won’t be able to control health costs – and make health care affordable for all Americans – until we revamp the system with something like single payer.

Full Article: http://theconversation.com/why-market-competition-has-not-brought-down-health-care-costs-78971

7   curious2   ignore (1)   2017 Jul 4, 5:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

BayAreaObserver says

The growing complexity of health care finance explains why it’s becoming more and more expensive even though there has been little or no improvement in quality. Since 1971, the share of our national income spent on health care has doubled.

We have neither a market system nor a public system. We have a lemon socialist system, designed to maximize the power of the patronage networks that enacted it. It operates as designed, maximizing power (especially in the form of revenue) for its authors. Current coverage mandates include infinite subsidies for disproved modalities and toxic placebos, because there's no more lucrative way to sell that stuff than by making it mandatory.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it. Either hire the people who have retired from the NHS and let them expand the VA to provide some basic services to all Americans, or have a market system where people buy whatever they want on Amazon and are free to buy insurance for whatever they're worried about.

8   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Jul 4, 6:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Any dissatisfaction with this perfect order is the invention of a twisted and resentful mind.

Funny!
And you have lost yours. lmao!

9   HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Jul 4, 6:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

errc says

and the simple simon motherfuckers that continue to vote for people that force this hell upon us.

Don't hold back.lol

10   BayAreaObserver   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 7, 4:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Private Equity Flouts State Regulations by Buying Medical Practices.

It’s so routine for private equity firms to run roughshod over the law that industry publications don’t even bother pointing out the misconduct.

An example is a new article in PE Hub, Why PE firms are buying orthopedic and ophthalmology practices . Mind you, private equity firms buying up medical practices is hardly new. For instance, some private equity firms were acquiring outpatient surgery centers years ago. Roy Poses at Health Care Renewal pointed out in 2015 that private equity was targeting primary doctors’ practices. And as Wolf Richter wrote later that year:

A report by Bain and Company found that last year, healthcare buyouts by PE firms – not corporate M&A – in North America soared nearly 60% year-over-year, to a new record of $15.6 billion, across 80 mostly smaller deals, with only two deals above $1 billion.

The new thing is that PE firms are targeting primary care groups.

“It’s a land-grab right now,” Todd Spaanstra, a partner at Crowe Horwath, an accounting and consulting firm, told Modern Healthcare in April. Part of the reason why they’re chasing after primary care practices is because specialty practices have become targets of publicly traded corporate entities that have been driving up prices beyond what PE firms are willing to pay.

The PE Hub article describes some but not all of the rationale for private equity firms snapping up speciality practices. They are targeting ones that combine insurance-covered procedures as well as more highly paid ancillary services, such as Lasik, or for dermatologists, lucrative vanity procedures, like Botox and injections to plump up sagging faces. As the article elaborates:

More: Including sub links to referenced material (10-15 minute read): https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/08/private-equity-flouts-state-regulations-buying-medical-practices.html#comments
11   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2017 Sep 9, 11:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

We desperately need up front pricing.

Comment as anon_96c83 or log in at top of page: