Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?
Replies
-
rheddmobile wrote: »
Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.
Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.
Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
I think it's important to rebut this misleading statement. The "alternative treatment" is admitted BY THOSE OFFERING IT to have zero potential to help whatsoever. The child is unable to respond but still able to feel pain. He is going to die no matter what happens. Again, the US facility offering the treatment freely admits the treatment would be futile. It's not usual for European courts to rule on whether a child gets medical treatment, but in this case doctors felt it was crossing a line into abuse. This sort of ruling is sometimes made even in the United States.
Unknown isn't zero. It's unknown. It's not futile, it's experimental. And with a condition as rare as this, unknown really does mean unknown.0 -
the doctors said the condition can't be reversed. the experimental treatment may or may not extend the life but it will not heal the boy. from my point I can understand the parents that want to spend more time with their child. I can understand the doctors too that we should not treat. at one point a longer life at a lower quality might not be the best way to move forward.
however I feel that the doc in the us is trying to make money its like we can try you can pay me a million maybe it will'help maybe not eventually the doctor will still get the money. why not make an official study and provide the treatment free? typically experimental or study the'patients do not need'to pay.
typically private insurance or governmental one have limits to what they can pay. the'resources are not unlimited and looking at the rise in costs there will be discussions on how much a life will be worth and how much insurance can a social'system manage.2 -
the doctors said the condition can't be reversed. the experimental treatment may or may not extend the life but it will not heal the boy. from my point I can understand the parents that want to spend more time with their child. I can understand the doctors too that we should not treat. at one point a longer life at a lower quality might not be the best way to move forward.
however I feel that the doc in the us is trying to make money its like we can try you can pay me a million maybe it will'help maybe not eventually the doctor will still get the money. why not make an official study and provide the treatment free? typically experimental or study the'patients do not need'to pay.
typically private insurance or governmental one have limits to what they can pay. the'resources are not unlimited and looking at the rise in costs there will be discussions on how much a life will be worth and how much insurance can a social'system manage.
They already are offering treatment free. The motivation isn't making money but learning more about the condition.
And actually futile is the exact word being used in the legal discussions - this treatment has no possibility of helping this child, and no one at any level, except the poor parents who aren't able to think straight, is pretending there is a possibility.3 -
the last I read was that parents were collecting over 1 mil to pay for the treatment n the doc wanted charge.
in any case its a situation that I no one wants to be in or have a family member in that situation. all of the media attention is not really helping the situation either.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The courts have ruled both ways over the last 70 years.
Thanks for making my point. It does happen here in the US (a NON-social medicine environment). Never said it's black and white, just said it happens here too. I doubt it's black in white in the UK either. I'm sure there are other cases that the parents won the fight in socialized medicine. So it's NOT a product of socialized medicine.
5 -
That is why it's called a pool by the insurance companies, they need to have a few bad ones to keep the reason to raise rates.0
-
Tough one. It really depends on a lot of factors...one can't just say you're overweight so you are going to cost more. Morbidly obese, maybe.
In my case, I'm a fit fat person. I'm have "exemplary" cholesterol levels, per my doctor. Ideal blood sugar, fasting and non-fasting, I have no high blood pressure. I run 3-4 miles 5 x's a week. I eat whole, healthy foods. Only indulge in the rare treat. My weight gain has been super slow, couple pounds a year over the last 15 years. Equates to 30 extra lbs.
My thyroid may be a question, but it's been hovering just above the cutoff. I do not get a ton of sleep, two small kids, work full time, working on my masters - gotta get up early for that run, stay up late to get my homework done. I'm also peri-menopausal, which adds to my weight battle.
I'm doing all the right things (except for getting 8 hours of sleep nightly), and my health numbers reflect this. So, should I pay more? I'm not doing things that are detrimental like eating fast food and being a sloth...why punish me for my body's chemistry?2 -
This is precisely the outcome of socialized medicine.
Citation please?
Show me where an insurance company refused to release a child into the care of a physician wanting to attempt an experimental course of therapy.
I'll accept one from your alleged "long list".
CPS or Child Protective Services. I don't need a list. You'd be amazed at how quickly they can take your child and strip you of parental rights with very little evidence. Especially if a doctor is claiming you are failing to treat you sick child properly. If you think it doesn't count, then go stick your little head back in the sand.
I'm not sure what stance you are taking then. CPS would be a government entity, so any citation of overreach would be another example of government overreach.
I'm a sworn officer and work with CPS/DCFS often. Not sure what you point is or how this relates.1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
If that kid had been a poor American, he'd have died a long time ago thanks to our idiotic, expensive system.
But by all means, keep parroting dumb talking points based on .000001% of cases while ignoring the other 99.999999% of outcomes.
I consider myself a conservative, and looking at the data from literally every Western country that's not the US, it's clear that single-payer is the fiscally conservative option.
And no, single-payer does nothing to keep wealthy people from using doctors outside of the system, or keep doctors from working outside of the system. It's the cheapest, most humane option available while retaining our beloved capitalist system for those who can afford it.
Our idiotic expensive system is idiotic and expensive based on two dominant factors: Insurance and Government.
Your solution is more insurance and government?
What data are you looking at?
Single payer is atrociously expensive, but the charges are largely hidden by the mazework of bureaucracy. For example the drug I manufacture cost less than 0.01 USD to manufacture and we sell this to wholesalers for 0.29 USD. Medicare pricing is 200 USD for this product. Explain how this happens and how single payer will "fix" this.
Are you aware of the negotiation process that occurs between buying groups, the Congressional committee, insurance groups, and pharmaceutical groups?0 -
i think it should be based on whether or not they have health complications due to obesity....i am considered obese and have perfect cholesterol, BP, blood sugar etc and there could be someone of optimal weight who has awful health.....0
-
the doctors said the condition can't be reversed. the experimental treatment may or may not extend the life but it will not heal the boy. from my point I can understand the parents that want to spend more time with their child. I can understand the doctors too that we should not treat. at one point a longer life at a lower quality might not be the best way to move forward.
however I feel that the doc in the us is trying to make money its like we can try you can pay me a million maybe it will'help maybe not eventually the doctor will still get the money. why not make an official study and provide the treatment free? typically experimental or study the'patients do not need'to pay.
typically private insurance or governmental one have limits to what they can pay. the'resources are not unlimited and looking at the rise in costs there will be discussions on how much a life will be worth and how much insurance can a social'system manage.
The physician in the US and now a panel of physicians in Italy have both offered their services pro bono. The funds collected were private donations.
...again - not your decision.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Socialized healthcare makes a profit? Military healthcare is for profit? Don't think so.There is just ONE reason that healthcare is expensive in the US............................................profit. Until the US becomes a not for profit venture, health care costs for people are just going to keep rising. And really we could have a decent government healthcare system if we diverted money to it. Problem is, taxpayer money is diverted to other profit ventures that benefit people in politics more than it does the people themselves.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Every healthcare system is for profit. Are you suggesting that bureaucrats work for free?
Lots of countries don't have people pay insurance on healthcare and do just fine. Our own would be health care for the military. I grew up an Air Force brat and even today, my retired parents (both past 85 years old) get great healthcare at NO COST to them.You can never have decent healthcare without a motive of profit. This is the primary reason healthcare costs have risen beyond the rest of the consumer index - deliberate insertion of middlemen (government and insurance).
Lol, wouldn't that be socialized medicine then? Affordability for ALL and not just the elite? And who's keeping big pharma and insurance companies happy? The people getting their palms greased by them. Health care shouldn't be for capital gain. I've personally worked in it and with people who suffer who busted their *kitten* working for decades only to use their retirement to pay for medical help not covered by insurance (mostly prescriptions drugs).If you allowed free market forces to compete then you would not have instances where Epipens rose to prohibitive prices. You would have competitive companies offering products at a reduced price to gain market share. Government is the problem, not the solution.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's rare that someone actually touts the VA as an shining example of socialized medicine, but if that's what you want to hang you hat on - be my guest. I'm a veteran and I should get no cost medical; however the scheduling and waiting lines make full time employment and service from the VA nearly impossible, unless you enjoy 6 months waiting lines.
Who's keeping big pharma happy? Well first you would have to research the relationship between what the congressional committees allow pharma to charge. A convoluted relationship between market wholesalers, market retailers, insurance companies, hospitals, and any other select buying groups...and of course the government. Pretty simple when you see who's providing the bulk of campaign contributions though.
Shouldn't is not a rational argument. You are actually making an argument against insurance, not for socialized medicine. Remove insurance, remove government. Unleash the free market and the cost of medicine will return to normal.
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
I think some VA clinics must be more impacted than others, then. Because my husband was able to get his latest appointment within 10 days. That's much faster than the three month wait I had to get an appointment just to see a GP with private insurance.
I'm not sure the story you brought up about the terminally ill kid is relevant to this thread. Terminally ill patients are allowed to die naturally in non-socialized medical systems, too. This poor kid's parents were grasping at straws to try an experimental treatment that had never been tried before on his condition and that multiple experts agreed would not have reversed his brain damage. So best case scenario, this kid lives longer, but in no better shape than he currently is. How is that a good thing? The potential treatment being offered would not have cured this child, but only "possibly" prolonged his life, while "potentially" causing additional harm/genetic mutations/pain/discomfort to him. IMO, not all medical intervention is a good thing. Sometimes it's best to let nature take it's course. I wouldn't want to be kept alive with a degenerative disorder that has destroyed much of my brain, and caused me to lose all normal functioning with no hope of improvement - only the possibility of living longer in that condition. I feel bad for the parents - no one wants to lose a child - but I can't fault the medical team in this case, and I wouldn't exactly call the doctors caring for him "bureaucrats."
I can understand why proponents of socialized medicine would want to downplay this story and all others like it. This isn't a matter of being allowed to die - it's one of a bureaucratic panel deciding that a child will die in direct conflict with the wishes of the parents. Of course you wouldn't want to use a term such as bureaucrat as it hurts your narrative. How else would you describe the European Court of Human Rights?
This isn't about you. Your opinion in this matter is irrelevant, as is mine. The only opinions that matter are that of the parents and the treating physicians, but this is never the case in a socialized structure. What is truly horrific is that the state now refuses to release custody of the parent's child to the parents.
To be expected as in a socialized system the individual has no unalienable rights. Your rights are those the state allows you to have.
The treating physicians DID give their opinion and the court upheld it.
In contradiction to the wishes of the parents and other physicians.
A court of bureaucrats superseded the wishes of parents. Despicable.
Which "other physicians"? You mean the guy who is willing to accept their money for his medical research in exchange for attempting "treatment," but who also acknowledged that the treatment was unlikely to work? Because all the current treating physicians and experts in the field were saying that the treatment has the potential to prolong discomfort or cause pain to the child, without much chance for benefit. Sometimes it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them. Clearly the parents' wishes are based on emotion, not rational medical expertise. Courts supersede parents wishes all the time when the parents' wishes are potentially harmful to their children. Kids are people, not property.
"Sometime it's more humane and ethical to let someone pass naturally than it is to experiment on them." - Not your decision. This is between the parents and their physician.
This is why I advocate for a two tiered structure. You may willingly relinquish all rights and liberty to your betters, but you speak for you and you alone.
Kids are evidently property of the government as highlighted by this case. Parents have no rights.
Without making this into a claim that they are equivalent situations, are you ever okay with the government *requiring* someone to get medical care for a child (if they're rejecting it due to religious/ideological reasons, for example) or punishing parents if they reject medical care and the child suffers lasting harm or death?
In regards to the US Constitution the citizen is the ultimate holder of all rights, society has no inherent rights and charged to ensure that citizen's rights are protected.
Parents are expected to protect their children and act in their best interests. The government is expected to do the same. I don't know how anyone could make a rational argument rejecting care resulting in suffering or harm.
Would the government be determining if a parental argument was rational or not?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The courts have ruled both ways over the last 70 years.
Thanks for making my point. It does happen here in the US (a NON-social medicine environment). Never said it's black and white, just said it happens here too. I doubt it's black in white in the UK either. I'm sure there are other cases that the parents won the fight in socialized medicine. So it's NOT a product of socialized medicine.
...except for the fact that the example you use is one of a nationalized structure. Government overriding the wishes of parents.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Cite a case in the US where the US ruled that an individual be denied medical care in contradiction to the wishes of the parents.0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
If that kid had been a poor American, he'd have died a long time ago thanks to our idiotic, expensive system.
But by all means, keep parroting dumb talking points based on .000001% of cases while ignoring the other 99.999999% of outcomes.
I consider myself a conservative, and looking at the data from literally every Western country that's not the US, it's clear that single-payer is the fiscally conservative option.
And no, single-payer does nothing to keep wealthy people from using doctors outside of the system, or keep doctors from working outside of the system. It's the cheapest, most humane option available while retaining our beloved capitalist system for those who can afford it.
Our idiotic expensive system is idiotic and expensive based on two dominant factors: Insurance and Government.
Your solution is more insurance and government?
What data are you looking at?
Single payer is atrociously expensive, but the charges are largely hidden by the mazework of bureaucracy. For example the drug I manufacture cost less than 0.01 USD to manufacture and we sell this to wholesalers for 0.29 USD. Medicare pricing is 200 USD for this product. Explain how this happens and how single payer will "fix" this.
Are you aware of the negotiation process that occurs between buying groups, the Congressional committee, insurance groups, and pharmaceutical groups?
I'm fascinated by this disparity. I recently had an issue with my insurance where they would only cover up to 2 refills at a Rite Aid (the third was going to cost $150, when I normally pay around $3), but they would cover refills at CVS at the normal insurance rate. How do companies, or institutions like Medicare, get such leeway when pricing drugs? Where is all that profit going to? I wouldn't expect the end user to get the wholesale price, for sure - obviously there are costs associated with distribution, sale, etc. but that markup seems insane.
The idealist in me wonders why we can't have a system that fairly compensates drug manufacturers and distributors/sales points at a set rate, i.e. distributers get to mark up no more than 20% from the wholesale price, and retail gets to markup another 25% at most. In the example above, that drug would end up costing the end user ~.43. Assuming that the $200 that Medicare is charging is for a 30 day supply, the price difference per unit over $6. I'm going to go ahead and make another assumption that this particular drug is outside of the patent period, where the pharmaceutical company has recouped the R&D costs.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The courts have ruled both ways over the last 70 years.
Thanks for making my point. It does happen here in the US (a NON-social medicine environment). Never said it's black and white, just said it happens here too. I doubt it's black in white in the UK either. I'm sure there are other cases that the parents won the fight in socialized medicine. So it's NOT a product of socialized medicine.
How do you think it makes your point when the courts have ruled that parents have the right to refuse life saving care on behalf of their children?1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
If that kid had been a poor American, he'd have died a long time ago thanks to our idiotic, expensive system.
But by all means, keep parroting dumb talking points based on .000001% of cases while ignoring the other 99.999999% of outcomes.
I consider myself a conservative, and looking at the data from literally every Western country that's not the US, it's clear that single-payer is the fiscally conservative option.
And no, single-payer does nothing to keep wealthy people from using doctors outside of the system, or keep doctors from working outside of the system. It's the cheapest, most humane option available while retaining our beloved capitalist system for those who can afford it.
Our idiotic expensive system is idiotic and expensive based on two dominant factors: Insurance and Government.
Your solution is more insurance and government?
What data are you looking at?
Single payer is atrociously expensive, but the charges are largely hidden by the mazework of bureaucracy. For example the drug I manufacture cost less than 0.01 USD to manufacture and we sell this to wholesalers for 0.29 USD. Medicare pricing is 200 USD for this product. Explain how this happens and how single payer will "fix" this.
Are you aware of the negotiation process that occurs between buying groups, the Congressional committee, insurance groups, and pharmaceutical groups?
I'm fascinated by this disparity. I recently had an issue with my insurance where they would only cover up to 2 refills at a Rite Aid (the third was going to cost $150, when I normally pay around $3), but they would cover refills at CVS at the normal insurance rate. How do companies, or institutions like Medicare, get such leeway when pricing drugs? Where is all that profit going to? I wouldn't expect the end user to get the retail price, for sure - obviously there are costs associated with distribution, sale, etc. but that markup seems insane.
The idealist in me wonders why we can't have a system that fairly compensates drug manufacturers and distributors/sales points at a set rate, i.e. distributers get to mark up no more than 20% from the wholesale price, and retail gets to markup another 25% at most. In the example above, that drug would end up costing the end user ~.43. Assuming that the $200 that Medicare is charging is for a 30 day supply, the price difference per unit over $6. I'm going to go ahead and make another assumption that this particular drug is outside of the patent period, where the pharmaceutical company has recouped the R&D costs.
Honestly this is something I've only recently been exposed to and this completely changed my outlook on medical care. This came up when managing an adverse event with a physician who wanted compensation for the product used and he told me what the customer was charged. It's events like this that media outlets should be covering, but you can't put this process on a bumper sticker and most people won't take the time to learn about why medical care costs so much. Much easier to shout "Free healthcare now!", but this only makes the root problem worse.
The regulatory process is much at fault here and prohibitively expensive, so reduced competition or no competition these firms go unchecked and can charge whatever they like. In medical products you have the rule of threes - three big pharma, three big insurance firms, three big wholesalers, etc. All prices are negotiated through committee panels with one key element lacking - consumer advocacy.1 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
If that kid had been a poor American, he'd have died a long time ago thanks to our idiotic, expensive system.
But by all means, keep parroting dumb talking points based on .000001% of cases while ignoring the other 99.999999% of outcomes.
I consider myself a conservative, and looking at the data from literally every Western country that's not the US, it's clear that single-payer is the fiscally conservative option.
And no, single-payer does nothing to keep wealthy people from using doctors outside of the system, or keep doctors from working outside of the system. It's the cheapest, most humane option available while retaining our beloved capitalist system for those who can afford it.
Our idiotic expensive system is idiotic and expensive based on two dominant factors: Insurance and Government.
Your solution is more insurance and government?
What data are you looking at?
Single payer is atrociously expensive, but the charges are largely hidden by the mazework of bureaucracy. For example the drug I manufacture cost less than 0.01 USD to manufacture and we sell this to wholesalers for 0.29 USD. Medicare pricing is 200 USD for this product. Explain how this happens and how single payer will "fix" this.
Are you aware of the negotiation process that occurs between buying groups, the Congressional committee, insurance groups, and pharmaceutical groups?
I'm fascinated by this disparity. I recently had an issue with my insurance where they would only cover up to 2 refills at a Rite Aid (the third was going to cost $150, when I normally pay around $3), but they would cover refills at CVS at the normal insurance rate. How do companies, or institutions like Medicare, get such leeway when pricing drugs? Where is all that profit going to? I wouldn't expect the end user to get the retail price, for sure - obviously there are costs associated with distribution, sale, etc. but that markup seems insane.
The idealist in me wonders why we can't have a system that fairly compensates drug manufacturers and distributors/sales points at a set rate, i.e. distributers get to mark up no more than 20% from the wholesale price, and retail gets to markup another 25% at most. In the example above, that drug would end up costing the end user ~.43. Assuming that the $200 that Medicare is charging is for a 30 day supply, the price difference per unit over $6. I'm going to go ahead and make another assumption that this particular drug is outside of the patent period, where the pharmaceutical company has recouped the R&D costs.
Honestly this is something I've only recently been exposed to and this completely changed my outlook on medical care. This came up when managing an adverse event with a physician who wanted compensation for the product used and he told me what the customer was charged. It's events like this that media outlets should be covering, but you can't put this process on a bumper sticker and most people won't take the time to learn about why medical care costs so much. Much easier to shout "Free healthcare now!", but this only makes the root problem worse.
The regulatory process is much at fault here and prohibitively expensive, so reduced competition or no competition these firms go unchecked and can charge whatever they like. In medical products you have the rule of threes - three big pharma, three big insurance firms, three big wholesalers, etc. All prices are negotiated through committee panels with one key element lacking - consumer advocacy.
Doesn't healthcare in general lack appropriate and effective consumer advocacy? I understand companies needing to make a profit. That is literally why they exist and I find no fault in them being fairly compensated for the work they do and for the products they manufacture. There has to be some incentive other than altruism to ensure that pharma companies in particular continue to invest in R&D and bring newer, safer, more effective medicines to society as a whole. I support doctors and nurses and hospitals being able to charge a fair price for their services - including enough to cover the overhead and investment into their professions and practices as well as personal compensation.
I think the major fault in the US healthcare system is that we have too many 'middlemen' each trying to maximize profit at every step of the way and then we end up with the end consumer facing exorbitant fees that they can only afford by paying into an insurance system. I don't think we need to move away from insurance, I do think that insurance companies should be held to a better standard and that the goal should be to *make a profit*, not *make as much profit as they can squeeze out of a rock*. Our current system is set up in such a way (not just in healthcare, but in general), so that market forces don't determine price - at least not the way that they should. Consumers complain and protest all the time about CEOs of major corporations making millions of dollars or getting golden parachute payouts after wrongdoing or mismanagement, and yet we still feed our money to those corporations. The idea that we have choice in our buying power is largely a fallacy. The example about the big three in healthcare is a good one. We may *think* that we have the option to choose a better company but in reality most of them feed back into the same umbrella organization.
We need better consumer advocacy across the board in healthcare. Major player have lobbyists protecting their interests, but the average citizen does not and that's a problem.
2 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »
Here's a lovely story highlighting the ultimate outcome of socialized medicine:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40454177
In summary the bureaucrats decide who lives and who dies. When taken to higher authority the judges at the European Court of Human Rights concluded that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm". Regardless of a US physician who has offered an alternative treatment the hospital will not release the child to the parent's custody.
If that kid had been a poor American, he'd have died a long time ago thanks to our idiotic, expensive system.
But by all means, keep parroting dumb talking points based on .000001% of cases while ignoring the other 99.999999% of outcomes.
I consider myself a conservative, and looking at the data from literally every Western country that's not the US, it's clear that single-payer is the fiscally conservative option.
And no, single-payer does nothing to keep wealthy people from using doctors outside of the system, or keep doctors from working outside of the system. It's the cheapest, most humane option available while retaining our beloved capitalist system for those who can afford it.
Our idiotic expensive system is idiotic and expensive based on two dominant factors: Insurance and Government.
Your solution is more insurance and government?
What data are you looking at?
Single payer is atrociously expensive, but the charges are largely hidden by the mazework of bureaucracy. For example the drug I manufacture cost less than 0.01 USD to manufacture and we sell this to wholesalers for 0.29 USD. Medicare pricing is 200 USD for this product. Explain how this happens and how single payer will "fix" this.
Are you aware of the negotiation process that occurs between buying groups, the Congressional committee, insurance groups, and pharmaceutical groups?
I'm fascinated by this disparity. I recently had an issue with my insurance where they would only cover up to 2 refills at a Rite Aid (the third was going to cost $150, when I normally pay around $3), but they would cover refills at CVS at the normal insurance rate. How do companies, or institutions like Medicare, get such leeway when pricing drugs? Where is all that profit going to? I wouldn't expect the end user to get the retail price, for sure - obviously there are costs associated with distribution, sale, etc. but that markup seems insane.
The idealist in me wonders why we can't have a system that fairly compensates drug manufacturers and distributors/sales points at a set rate, i.e. distributers get to mark up no more than 20% from the wholesale price, and retail gets to markup another 25% at most. In the example above, that drug would end up costing the end user ~.43. Assuming that the $200 that Medicare is charging is for a 30 day supply, the price difference per unit over $6. I'm going to go ahead and make another assumption that this particular drug is outside of the patent period, where the pharmaceutical company has recouped the R&D costs.
Honestly this is something I've only recently been exposed to and this completely changed my outlook on medical care. This came up when managing an adverse event with a physician who wanted compensation for the product used and he told me what the customer was charged. It's events like this that media outlets should be covering, but you can't put this process on a bumper sticker and most people won't take the time to learn about why medical care costs so much. Much easier to shout "Free healthcare now!", but this only makes the root problem worse.
The regulatory process is much at fault here and prohibitively expensive, so reduced competition or no competition these firms go unchecked and can charge whatever they like. In medical products you have the rule of threes - three big pharma, three big insurance firms, three big wholesalers, etc. All prices are negotiated through committee panels with one key element lacking - consumer advocacy.
Doesn't healthcare in general lack appropriate and effective consumer advocacy? I understand companies needing to make a profit. That is literally why they exist and I find no fault in them being fairly compensated for the work they do and for the products they manufacture. There has to be some incentive other than altruism to ensure that pharma companies in particular continue to invest in R&D and bring newer, safer, more effective medicines to society as a whole. I support doctors and nurses and hospitals being able to charge a fair price for their services - including enough to cover the overhead and investment into their professions and practices as well as personal compensation.
I think the major fault in the US healthcare system is that we have too many 'middlemen' each trying to maximize profit at every step of the way and then we end up with the end consumer facing exorbitant fees that they can only afford by paying into an insurance system. I don't think we need to move away from insurance, I do think that insurance companies should be held to a better standard and that the goal should be to *make a profit*, not *make as much profit as they can squeeze out of a rock*. Our current system is set up in such a way (not just in healthcare, but in general), so that market forces don't determine price - at least not the way that they should. Consumers complain and protest all the time about CEOs of major corporations making millions of dollars or getting golden parachute payouts after wrongdoing or mismanagement, and yet we still feed our money to those corporations. The idea that we have choice in our buying power is largely a fallacy. The example about the big three in healthcare is a good one. We may *think* that we have the option to choose a better company but in reality most of them feed back into the same umbrella organization.
We need better consumer advocacy across the board in healthcare. Major player have lobbyists protecting their interests, but the average citizen does not and that's a problem.
The problem is that those middlemen have been inserted by "regulators"1 -
the doctors said the condition can't be reversed. the experimental treatment may or may not extend the life but it will not heal the boy. from my point I can understand the parents that want to spend more time with their child. I can understand the doctors too that we should not treat. at one point a longer life at a lower quality might not be the best way to move forward.
however I feel that the doc in the us is trying to make money its like we can try you can pay me a million maybe it will'help maybe not eventually the doctor will still get the money. why not make an official study and provide the treatment free? typically experimental or study the'patients do not need'to pay.
typically private insurance or governmental one have limits to what they can pay. the'resources are not unlimited and looking at the rise in costs there will be discussions on how much a life will be worth and how much insurance can a social'system manage.
The physician in the US and now a panel of physicians in Italy have both offered their services pro bono. The funds collected were private donations.
...again - not your decision.
You mean the Vatican doctors?0 -
I say that people who use health care should have to pay more for insurance. Put a 50% increase on your premium for each doctor visit. Another 50% increase for every prescription. 50% if you need lab tests or any scans. It's not fair healthy people pay for sick people.
Huh??
You know how healthy people stay healthy? Going to the doctor. Getting prescriptions. You know how sick people get healthy? Read above.
You know what both of those things have in common? More able-bodied, healthy working (taxpaying) citizens. Which also means a better economy. Higher numbers of healthy population costs all taxpayers less in the end.5 -
No. Everyone should be entitled to the same level of healthcare. I feel it's a basic human right. It's similar to charging people more who have a pre existing condition. What else, are we going to charge people more who have a genetic predisposition to certain Illnesses?
Basic human rights would be life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
You have no right to demand services provided by another individual.
Are you saying there is no relationship between healthcare and life?
Life - as in you have the unalienable right to live your life as you see fit - enjoy the rewards as well as suffer the consequences for your behavior. You have no right to demand services provided by another individual. That would be a clear infringement upon their unalienable rights.
And yet csar is fine with everyone being entitled to the same level of fire or police services.....that's an exception to his 'you cannot demand services' mantra.
Depends on the nation. In the US there is a clear distinction - one of the responsibilities of government is to provide security to the citizens. So in this case this supports and ensures that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is achievable.
Law enforcement is an inherent role of government. Healthcare is not.
It's true it depends on the nation as different nations have different opinions on human rights and governmental roles. I for one think healthcare is necessary for both life and the pursuit of happiness and by providing the same level to all citizens, it is not unduly impeding the rights of other citizens.
Euro/UK socialized health care (sick care) also provides tax payer funded medical services to non-citizens. Given the current situation in UK/Western Europe, how much longer do you think that will be sustainable?
Sorry but this isn't true. At the moment (though not for much longer ) the uk is a member of the EU and there are reciprocal healthcare arrangements between EU countries but non EU citizens have to pay for healthcare in the UK unless it's urgent.3 -
I find the whole question kind of repulsive. This growing trend of everyone examining their neighbor to make sure they "aren't paying for something they aren't responsible for" is a cancer on civilized society. With all the variables involved--whether it's health, social services, taxes, whatever--everyone who lives in a group gives some and takes some. It all evens out in the end. Focusing on one aspect of health--in this case "obesity"--for special opprobrium is even more myopic. If you think you are paying more for someone else's "X", someone else is paying more for your "Y".
I guarantee that every single individual who lives in a modern, democratic society in on "the dole" in more ways than one.
Everyone. Without exception.
Instead of wasting so much time and energy coveting our neighbor's goods, we should be working to make society work better for everyone.
except it doesn't all "even out in the end"0 -
So do you think people who are overweight and/or obese should have to pay more?
Do you think this would be a deterrent to gaining weight for people that are not in this category?
Should people with medications/medical conditions that cause weight gain be exempt?
No, but I'm of the camp of individuals who believes if you are a smoker you should pay more until you kick your habit. Obese individuals may have gotten obese from a disease or medicine (like you mentioned), not necessarily their fault (though of course it can be). Generally smoking is something you do to yourself, and I think there should be incentives in place for smokers to quit, maybe a discount. It would be very interesting, actually, if there was an incentive for obese individuals as well, to give them a discount for wellness, like if you could lose a certain number of pounds (or be within a healthy range?) you could get so much percentage off.
The problem I see though is that if we do this, it would require a lot of work. We'd have to be able to prove to our insurance company that we'd actually made significant progress. Another thought is, how does each person determine their healthy weight range in order to qualify for the discount? Just an idea. Probably not something feasible anyway, but I'm the type of person that works really well with motivation and incentive, so right now I've been using "Achievemint", which is an app on my phone where if you get 10,000 points, you get $10 in rewards. I decided I'm going to work really hard with the app and get as many rewards as possible, and if I can get to $80 in rewards, I'm going to buy myself some new art supplies!2 -
I don't know why there should be any morality to this at all. It's about actuarial tables and relative risk, and how to weight it appropriately when charging premia to insurance subscribers to the point where an insurance company can make a profit.3
-
My husband's company has programs to get money off your insurance. Twice a year, we get a full blood panel done and get our weight checked. If you are normal BMI, you automatically get the second credit of $600, if you are overweight or obese, you have to either log exercise for 90 days or do 3 health coaching calls. I think more companies should have incentives like this.
Very good. We get checked 3 times per year. It's an independent Health & Wellness program running in conjunction with the insurance companies. Businesses which work successfully with the program, can save on the cost of insurance premiums when the policy is up for review.1 -
I don't know why there should be any morality to this at all. It's about actuarial tables and relative risk, and how to weight it appropriately when charging premia to insurance subscribers to the point where an insurance company can make a profit.
Because we are creating exceptions where they can charge more for increased risk when normally they cannot.
So the justification for that seems to be "breast cancer gene, not your fault" but "smoking, your fault, and plus we want to create an incentive for you to change it." When debating where obesity (or anything else) faults, of course it becomes a discussion of these things.0 -
I don't know why there should be any morality to this at all. It's about actuarial tables and relative risk, and how to weight it appropriately when charging premia to insurance subscribers to the point where an insurance company can make a profit.
The thing is, insurance is an insane way to pay for health care. Insurance only works when it's for expenses that are rare, like a house burning down, which can be shared among multiple people whose houses didn't burn down. It doesn't work for anticipated expenses, when no one can afford them and everyone has them. All people get old and eventually sick and die. Most people will eventually have a serious condition of some sort, and no one, except the top tier wealthy, can afford to pay for such a condition out of pocket. Many people can't even afford the well care and checkups they know they will have. Therefore the insurance model is a non-working model for this situation. Other countries have already realized this and some day we'll face up to it too.8 -
^^^ excellent points1
-
goodkoalie wrote: »Definitely. People who are more at risk should pay more. As a young male, I pay more for car insurance then almost everybody. The same should apply to healthcare.
Yes, you do. But your rate for car insurance is based largely in part on the potential for harm to others. Health care is all about the individual and that person's illnesses/conditions.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »The thing is, insurance is an insane way to pay for health care. Insurance only works when it's for expenses that are rare, like a house burning down, which can be shared among multiple people whose houses didn't burn down. It doesn't work for anticipated expenses, when no one can afford them and everyone has them. All people get old and eventually sick and die. Most people will eventually have a serious condition of some sort, and no one, except the top tier wealthy, can afford to pay for such a condition out of pocket. Many people can't even afford the well care and checkups they know they will have. Therefore the insurance model is a non-working model for this situation. Other countries have already realized this and some day we'll face up to it too.
Exactly.
QFT.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions