Health Care and Insurance Industries Mobilize to Kill ‘Medicare for All’

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,392
2,402
1,743
So Cal
#61
Again you take what I say make it your argument and scream “absolute bs”. It’s good you have moved on from “FAIL...”. Look at my #2 above. That is in response to you saying “we’re free to buy whatever auto insurance you want.” That is wrong. You are free to choose to drive but once you make that choice you are required to buy at a minimum (and in most states) liability. And what in the hell do you think is going to happen to medical costs when millions of people opt out of insurance but their health needs don’t change and as you imply no longer show up for “maintenance” but instead now show up for more costly services for which they don’t have insurance. And also since insurance in and of itself is a form of socialism what happens to premiums when the risk pool is spread among fewer people? Sure we will see competition across state lines and maybe more companies offering more product but I still go back to health insurance & health care are different animals than picking out a tv or mobile phone plan. How many people do you know that price shop prescription medications or negotiate knee replacement surgery with their dr. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do those things but you have to be honest about that and he fact that health care costs might go down with insurance companies negotiating on your behalf but they weren’t going down from he 1970’s up until the ACA was put into effect.

One final point prior to ACA mandating minimum policy requirements you could purchase “car wreck & cancer” policies that were just for catastrophic events.
FAIL... more nonsense.

Botox, Lasik, plastic surgery, etc., etc. have dropped drastically in price since they were introduced and they are not covered by insurance.

People price shop for major surgery all the time, especially if it's out of pocket.

health costs went up even with ACA... AND insurance went up too, way up.

I don't even know what your freaking point is.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
48
#62
that's what I told him, not listening.. just making silly arguments. There is no comparison.
Ok we are debating semantics of the issue. If you go back and read what I’ve said I acknowledge that in some states you don’t even have to have liability insurance if you can prove and make a declaration of financial responsibility. And it’s just not liability to cover other people but also their property (vehicle). I acknowledge that you don’t have to have insurance for your own car.

California Cowboy claimed we are free to choose whatever auto insurance we want. This is not true. The choice is whether to drive or not. Once you chose to drive you are required by law to carry a minimum type of insurance in all but a handful of states where the financial responsibility idea comes into play. That type of insurance is liability to cover person/property depending on the law.

The point goes back to the discussion of health insurance. We have adjusted as a society to a law requiring insurance. We all live everyday with federal and state regulation of utilities. Until someone brings this up (which I did in this thread) you rarely see a debate. Why does it have to be zero sum? I believe consumers are better off with private insurance. I also think we need policies that eliminate lifetime maxes & protect pre existing conditions. This doesn’t mean that every policy has to contain both items just that if you sell insurance you have to at least sell a policy with certain protections. And yes I realize that might cost the consumer more but if competition drives down prices and promotes innovation then that will happen with different types of policies.

I also believe that left completely to themselves insurance companies cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of patients therefore requiring oversight by the government.

I understand that some don’t like this idea and counter that competition will force them to behave properly or that lawsuits help repair damages. But this is not a freaking smart phone or phone plan we are talking about. If my wife dies because an insurance company wouldn’t approve a treatment that her dr said was necessary I don’t want a judge or jury saying “sorry” here’s a settlement or a reduction in next months bill.
 
Dec 9, 2013
308
165
593
48
#63
FAIL... more nonsense.

Botox, Lasik, plastic surgery, etc., etc. have dropped drastically in price since they were introduced and they are not covered by insurance.

People price shop for major surgery all the time, especially if it's out of pocket.

health costs went up even with ACA... AND insurance went up too, way up.

I don't even know what your freaking point is.
That’s because perspective, patience & comprehension are not skills in your toolbox.

You are talking to a person that negotiates every 6 months with XM radio and every year with my tv provider. My kids won’t go into bestbuy with me because I negotiate every time. And if it’s not on price then it’s on warranty or delivery or disposal.

You bring up elective surgeries to try and prove a point & I would argue those aren’t even healthcare even though there are some general health concerns those procedures can address. And again you are trying to make it a straight black and white issue. Yes some people negotiate out of pocket when they have the opportunity but that’s not how all healthcare is delivered. If I’m in a car wreck I don’t price shop which hospital they take me to or pull out my phone during a heart attack and google bargain heart docs.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#64
This is not exactly true, you are not required to have coverage on your own car, you have to have liability insurance to cover OTHER people.
But it is similar. Because federal law (and ethics) requires an emergency department to take care of you regardless of your ability to pay, both having an auto accident and having a medical condition cause potential financial harm to other people. If you could be allowed to lay there and die (as you are allowed to not fix your car), then what you said would be true.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,224
23,695
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#65
But it is similar. Because federal law (and ethics) requires an emergency department to take care of you regardless of your ability to pay, both having an auto accident and having a medical condition cause potential financial harm to other people. If you could be allowed to lay there and die (as you are allowed to not fix your car), then what you said would be true.
I disagree. With liability auto insurance, there is a direct and definite connection between the accident and the cost to the person who was hit. In the case of an emergency room, there is no such direct connection. More to the point, I would argue that people not paying their bills is not a significant contributor to the high cost of healthcare....in fact, I would argue just the opposite, the high cost of health care is a significant contributing factor to people w/out insurance not paying their bills and cheaper costs would mean fewer of those people unable to pay....in other words, the free market is still the better solution.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,392
2,402
1,743
So Cal
#66
Ok we are debating semantics of the issue. If you go back and read what I’ve said I acknowledge that in some states you don’t even have to have liability insurance if you can prove and make a declaration of financial responsibility. And it’s just not liability to cover other people but also their property (vehicle). I acknowledge that you don’t have to have insurance for your own car.

California Cowboy claimed we are free to choose whatever auto insurance we want. This is not true. The choice is whether to drive or not. Once you chose to drive you are required by law to carry a minimum type of insurance in all but a handful of states where the financial responsibility idea comes into play. That type of insurance is liability to cover person/property depending on the law.

The point goes back to the discussion of health insurance. We have adjusted as a society to a law requiring insurance. We all live everyday with federal and state regulation of utilities. Until someone brings this up (which I did in this thread) you rarely see a debate. Why does it have to be zero sum? I believe consumers are better off with private insurance. I also think we need policies that eliminate lifetime maxes & protect pre existing conditions. This doesn’t mean that every policy has to contain both items just that if you sell insurance you have to at least sell a policy with certain protections. And yes I realize that might cost the consumer more but if competition drives down prices and promotes innovation then that will happen with different types of policies.

I also believe that left completely to themselves insurance companies cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of patients therefore requiring oversight by the government.

I understand that some don’t like this idea and counter that competition will force them to behave properly or that lawsuits help repair damages. But this is not a freaking smart phone or phone plan we are talking about. If my wife dies because an insurance company wouldn’t approve a treatment that her dr said was necessary I don’t want a judge or jury saying “sorry” here’s a settlement or a reduction in next months bill.
knock it off already.... you are free to chose the liability insurance that you want.. you can chose between differing levels of coverage depending on your risk tolerance.

You can choose and everybody does choose how much liability insurance they want to carry.

you just need to stop already.....

I'm moving on... medicare for all is disastrous and harmful.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#67
I disagree. With liability auto insurance, there is a direct and definite connection between the accident and the cost to the person who was hit. In the case of an emergency room, there is no such direct connection. More to the point, I would argue that people not paying their bills is not a significant contributor to the high cost of healthcare....in fact, I would argue just the opposite, the high cost of health care is a significant contributing factor to people w/out insurance not paying their bills and cheaper costs would mean fewer of those people unable to pay....in other words, the free market is still the better solution.
Hey, why don't you open a restaurant. I'll come eat there all the time and not pay for the food. Then you can claim when you have to close that there was no direct connection between people like me eating there for free and you closing your doors.

Urban and suburban areas have lost a quarter of their hospital emergency departments over the last 20 years, according to the study, in The Journal of the American Medical Association. In 1990, there were 2,446 hospitals with emergency departments in nonrural areas. That number dropped to 1,779 in 2009, even as the total number of emergency room visits nationwide increased by roughly 35 percent.

Emergency departments were most likely to have closed if they served large numbers of the poor, were at commercially operated hospitals, were in hospitals with skimpy profit margins or operated in highly competitive markets, the researchers found.


Hey, business was so good, up 35%, that we had to shut down a quarter of our locations!
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,290
170
143
77539
#68
Hey, why don't you open a restaurant. I'll come eat there all the time and not pay for the food. Then you can claim when you have to close that there was no direct connection between people like me eating there for free and you closing your doors.

Urban and suburban areas have lost a quarter of their hospital emergency departments over the last 20 years, according to the study, in The Journal of the American Medical Association. In 1990, there were 2,446 hospitals with emergency departments in nonrural areas. That number dropped to 1,779 in 2009, even as the total number of emergency room visits nationwide increased by roughly 35 percent.

Emergency departments were most likely to have closed if they served large numbers of the poor, were at commercially operated hospitals, were in hospitals with skimpy profit margins or operated in highly competitive markets, the researchers found.

Hey, business was so good, up 35%, that we had to shut down a quarter of our locations!
I'm not sure about the rest of the U.S. but Houston has had probably hundreds of "Emergency Rooms" pop up all over town. This all the while dozens of new hospitals have been built. I just assumed these Emergency Rooms were like walk-in clinics you see in Walmart and grocery stores so I took my wife to one of these for a sinus infection. We were there about 15 minutes and were told to go somewhere else because a sinus infection wasn't an emergency. Maybe this is why there are fewer hospital emergency departments?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,224
23,695
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#69
Hey, why don't you open a restaurant. I'll come eat there all the time and not pay for the food. Then you can claim when you have to close that there was no direct connection between people like me eating there for free and you closing your doors.
First of all, I never said that people not paying their bills wasn't bad for business, I said it was not the biggest factor in the high cost of health care. It is IMO, clearly a symptom of our broken system, not a cause of it.

But for fun, I'll play along:
If government regulations caused me to charge so much for the food that people couldn't afford to pay for it without meal insurance, then the issue wouldn't be as clear and direct as you're trying to make it. Are you suggesting in your scenario that the government should adopt single payer food plans, control what food a store could and could not sell and require everybody to participate under penalty of law? Because I promise you, as the hypothetical restaurant owner, that would not be the best solution for me.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#70
First of all, I never said that people not paying their bills wasn't bad for business, I said it was not the biggest factor in the high cost of health care. It is IMO, clearly a symptom of our broken system, not a cause of it.

But for fun, I'll play along:
If government regulations caused me to charge so much for the food that people couldn't afford to pay for it without meal insurance, then the issue wouldn't be as clear and direct as you're trying to make it. Are you suggesting in your scenario that the government should adopt single payer food plans, control what food a store could and could not sell and require everybody to participate under penalty of law? Because I promise you, as the hypothetical restaurant owner, that would not be the best solution for me.
You simply moved along from the point I was making to some other part of the absurd complexity that is US health care.

The only specific point I made is that based on our current laws, if you choose to have no health insurance or ability to pay for it on your own, other people are harmed because they cannot choose not to treat you. It is not like choosing to avoid comprehensive coverage for your car where it is only your problem if your car doesn't get fixed.

You are avoiding that point by bringing in "high cost of health care" etc and now discussing single payer that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#71
I'm not sure about the rest of the U.S. but Houston has had probably hundreds of "Emergency Rooms" pop up all over town. This all the while dozens of new hospitals have been built. I just assumed these Emergency Rooms were like walk-in clinics you see in Walmart and grocery stores so I took my wife to one of these for a sinus infection. We were there about 15 minutes and were told to go somewhere else because a sinus infection wasn't an emergency. Maybe this is why there are fewer hospital emergency departments?
If that is what happened then that is an EMTALA violation and you could simply turn them in to CMS for a $50K fine.
No, the treatment (or mistreatment) of insured people with minor issues has nothing to do with the problems of EDs closing. The standalone emergency departments you are talking about are generally built in well-off areas and their contribution to the problem is minor. And, that is a mostly Texas phenomenon. And, if you have noticed, many are closing.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,392
2,402
1,743
So Cal
#72
The only specific point I made is that based on our current laws, if you choose to have no health insurance or ability to pay for it on your own, other people are harmed because they cannot choose not to treat you. It is not like choosing to avoid comprehensive coverage for your car where it is only your problem if your car doesn't get fixed.

.
that's not really true is it?.... the only treatment that is mandatory is emergency room care, and frankly that is a very small portion of health insurance (i.e., most people with health insurance don't do so for emergency room service, per se)..... conversely, people (especially young people) who don't have insurance do not run to the ER every time they have a cold (which you seem to be implying). I have insurance and I did not go to the Dr. or the ER with my recent flu which had me literally bedridden for 2 days.

Isn't it true that every single health provider can choose not to treat you (except for the ER)?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#73
that's not really true is it?.... the only treatment that is mandatory is emergency room care, and frankly that is a very small portion of health insurance (i.e., most people with health insurance don't do so for emergency room service, per se)..... conversely, people (especially young people) who don't have insurance do not run to the ER every time they have a cold (which you seem to be implying). I have insurance and I did not go to the Dr. or the ER with my recent flu which had me literally bedridden for 2 days.

Isn't it true that every single health provider can choose not to treat you (except for the ER)?
I specifically said the ER and it is absolutely true. What difference does it make if it is only one type of care? Would you be OK with auto liability insurance that excluded only driver side collisions since they are only a small proportion? Are you implying that ER doctors and other doctors providing emergency care don't count in our system? I am an ER doctor, when I was treasurer of our corp our no-pay rate was 17% which is extremely good. Many run up into the 30% range of no-pay visits (prior to Obamacare). I said nor implied anything at all about people "running to the ER every time they have a cold" which is a different subject altogether than payment. If you have ever looked at my posts on that subject I do not feel that is even an issue of concern.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#74
To further prove the point that I could not care less about people going to the ER with whatever acute condition bothers them, here is a post of mine from 2017:
Further proof that we are not a free market based health care system. Look at the bolded text. Despite higher costs and disincentives, patients are still going to the ER more and more. I would argue that they are wrong that 3/4th are non-emergency, but it doesn't matter.
If this were a free market, the health care system would realize that the ER is what the modern health care consumer wants to use often. We would not try to push them to a place they do not want to go. We would make the place that the consumer is choosing to go better, less costly, and more efficient. Instead, we falsely pile the hidden costs of health care in the country into the "ER bill." We harm people for making choices that are better for them, and fight against the customer. That is not free market. That is much closer to socialism. Look at what the people in power are saying compared to what the customer wants to do.
The fact is the ER is considered better by the consumer for a lot of things that the system wants them to go elsewhere for. It is the Walmart of health care (other than the falsely inflated price).


https://www.orangepower.com/threads/a-single-payer-system-will-not-work-period.234958/#post-3629350
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,392
2,402
1,743
So Cal
#75
I specifically said the ER and it is absolutely true. What difference does it make if it is only one type of care? Would you be OK with auto liability insurance that excluded only driver side collisions since they are only a small proportion? Are you implying that ER doctors and other doctors providing emergency care don't count in our system? I am an ER doctor, when I was treasurer of our corp our no-pay rate was 17% which is extremely good. Many run up into the 30% range of no-pay visits (prior to Obamacare). I said nor implied anything at all about people "running to the ER every time they have a cold" which is a different subject altogether than payment. If you have ever looked at my posts on that subject I do not feel that is even an issue of concern.
drama much?

because.... ER is a completely different beast with different laws.... and that is not where most of the insurance money goes, nor is it the point of insurance.

There is no correlation to auto insurance, so not even going to address that.

the difference is that "catastrophic coverage" would include the ER bill.

medical professionals CAN deny service. (ER's have different laws governing them)
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,392
2,402
1,743
So Cal
#76
To further prove the point that I could not care less about people going to the ER with whatever acute condition bothers them, here is a post of mine from 2017:
Further proof that we are not a free market based health care system. Look at the bolded text. Despite higher costs and disincentives, patients are still going to the ER more and more. I would argue that they are wrong that 3/4th are non-emergency, but it doesn't matter.
If this were a free market, the health care system would realize that the ER is what the modern health care consumer wants to use often. We would not try to push them to a place they do not want to go. We would make the place that the consumer is choosing to go better, less costly, and more efficient. Instead, we falsely pile the hidden costs of health care in the country into the "ER bill." We harm people for making choices that are better for them, and fight against the customer. That is not free market. That is much closer to socialism. Look at what the people in power are saying compared to what the customer wants to do.
The fact is the ER is considered better by the consumer for a lot of things that the system wants them to go elsewhere for. It is the Walmart of health care (other than the falsely inflated price).


https://www.orangepower.com/threads/a-single-payer-system-will-not-work-period.234958/#post-3629350
I'm 100% postive that you are misinterpreting what people believe and "feel". Could it be "convenience", even though if you've ever sat in an ER waiting room for 6 hours (I have many, many, many times) there is nothing convenient about ER service.

Perhaps it has more to do with "hours of operation".... it's really not that convenient to have to schedule a DR appointment, and having to take time off of work.

I think you're totally misrepresenting the situations.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#77
drama much?

because.... ER is a completely different beast with different laws.... and that is not where most of the insurance money goes, nor is it the point of insurance.

There is no correlation to auto insurance, so not even going to address that.

the difference is that "catastrophic coverage" would include the ER bill.

medical professionals CAN deny service. (ER's have different laws governing them)
You are the one that started with the drama.

I am a medical professional. I cannot deny service. Unless you are implying that a doctor working in the ER is not a "medical professional." Your typical BS insult hidden in a comment. The lasw do not govern just ERs. This is my speciality, why do you think you can tell me the laws that apply to my job. Narcissist much?

If I made the claim that "most" insurance money went to the ER, for once you would actually have a point. But, being that isn't what I said at all, this is just your typical failed attempt to salvage yourself.

Why, oh why, do I let you pull me in to your idiotic nonsense time after time?

I'm done, anyone with have a brain at this point will be able to see how foolish you look. No need in belaboring the point.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
25,745
31,600
1,743
oklahoma city
#78
I'm 100% postive that you are misinterpreting what people believe and "feel". Could it be "convenience", even though if you've ever sat in an ER waiting room for 6 hours (I have many, many, many times) there is nothing convenient about ER service.

Perhaps it has more to do with "hours of operation".... it's really not that convenient to have to schedule a DR appointment, and having to take time off of work.

I think you're totally misrepresenting the situations.
You have to be the most argumentative person on earth. At least when I leave, you can find a good fencepost and carry-on.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,290
170
143
77539
#79
If that is what happened then that is an EMTALA violation and you could simply turn them in to CMS for a $50K fine.
No, the treatment (or mistreatment) of insured people with minor issues has nothing to do with the problems of EDs closing. The standalone emergency departments you are talking about are generally built in well-off areas and their contribution to the problem is minor. And, that is a mostly Texas phenomenon. And, if you have noticed, many are closing.
Although I thought it was stupid (no one other than us were in the place so they would be making money) I had no problem with them telling me it wasn't an emergency. It wasn't. I haven't seen any of them close. In fact, we know a couple who own around 50 of them in the Houston area. Maybe they were a phenomenon of Obamacare. I don't know. I'm seeing more "rural" hospitals close than urban ones. Pauls Valley recently closed their hospital.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,392
2,402
1,743
So Cal
#80
You are the one that started with the drama.

I am a medical professional. I cannot deny service. Unless you are implying that a doctor working in the ER is not a "medical professional." Your typical BS insult hidden in a comment. The lasw do not govern just ERs. This is my speciality, why do you think you can tell me the laws that apply to my job. Narcissist much?

If I made the claim that "most" insurance money went to the ER, for once you would actually have a point. But, being that isn't what I said at all, this is just your typical failed attempt to salvage yourself.

Why, oh why, do I let you pull me in to your idiotic nonsense time after time?

I'm done, anyone with have a brain at this point will be able to see how foolish you look. No need in belaboring the point.
dancing queen, she is a dancing queen.....

I already EXCLUDED ER's ... for the very reasons that you listed.

I don't care what you said.... I'm telling you what I said.. and then you went off the deep end with your nonsense.... as you always do.

hard for me to fathom that you have a medical degree, much less an undergraduate degree....

you don't even understand the discussion - you only understand the tangent that you introduced.

now get back on topic....