Posted by rgoodwin on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 01:43 pm
A friend asked me and it gave me reason to think about it. Since
US Taxpayers already pay/subsidize for the uninsured to be treated
in hospitals all over the country, then why if the Government wants
to give them insurance in some form or fashion does it
mean the country's costs need to go up? It shold save money in
the long run....I guess it's got something to do with Washington
coming up with the plan....
Imagine that when Dr. Orlando hit a deer with his Harley there
was also an uninsured biker that did the same in a neighboring
state.
The accounting cost to the system would be the same.
So you are correct there is NO theoretical increase in cost by
giving the biker health insurance.
But the uninsured with severe problems still end up using
medical care ( the ER and other less cost effective methods with
delay of eventual care that is much more expensive. That is one
reason why we pay 18% of GNP vs Europe 10% to 11%.
However once a noninsured gets an Insurance card through the
government or Private corporations (Raytheon, GM, Chrysler ) there
is an inevitable increase in use of the health care system.
If done right this would not result in an overall increase of
per capita cost.
BUT...
if my grandmother had a beard she would be my grandfather.
And since a camel is a race horse designed by congress I don't
have much hope that my fave pres will pull it off.
Posted by onechosen1 on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 02:12 pm
I help run a university hospital in California. We have
documented that once someone who was uninsured is insured, they use
more healthcare than before, and thus the costs go up as a
nation. In fact, that is one of the several core falacies of
this reform plan... there is no way to have the national cost go
down while insuring more people for more things on a first dollar
basis. If they figure the aditional cost at $1T, figure it
will be easily $3T+ by the time it is done.
you are correct: possession of a health card increases usage
proportional to the percent that is "picked up" by the insurance.
This applies to diffenent degrees to all wealth scales.
Back in the late 80's (1986?) an internal study at Bain and Co.
( a National consulting group) predicted that if something was not
done about rising costs of healthcare the cost would bankrupt most
of the S&P 500 corporations by 1992. They concluded (for
their multi billion client) than that will lead to Managed Care as
almost inevitable conclusion.
However due to the increased usage of healthcare by the better
insured across the board (my insurance pays for my gym
mentality) and the increased bureaucracy (from 15% to 45% of
the health dollar) it just postponed the inevitable.
GM did go backrupt but not in 1992 as predicted but in 2009.
Your logic can be useful to solve the problem and extrapolated
to an optimal solution of:
No one gets health insurance except for major life changing
items such as cancer,
That would solve the Corporate problems and the cost would be
significantly less than the 10% Europe GNP cost.
OT - Healthcare
Posted by rgoodwin on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 01:43 pm
A friend asked me and it gave me reason to think about it. Since US Taxpayers already pay/subsidize for the uninsured to be treated in hospitals all over the country, then why if the Government wants to give them insurance in some form or fashion does it mean the country's costs need to go up? It shold save money in the long run....I guess it's got something to do with Washington coming up with the plan....
OT-Healthcare
Posted by cdjd on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 02:24 pm
Imagine that when Dr. Orlando hit a deer with his Harley there was also an uninsured biker that did the same in a neighboring state.
The accounting cost to the system would be the same.
So you are correct there is NO theoretical increase in cost by giving the biker health insurance.
But the uninsured with severe problems still end up using medical care ( the ER and other less cost effective methods with delay of eventual care that is much more expensive. That is one reason why we pay 18% of GNP vs Europe 10% to 11%.
However once a noninsured gets an Insurance card through the government or Private corporations (Raytheon, GM, Chrysler ) there is an inevitable increase in use of the health care system.
If done right this would not result in an overall increase of per capita cost.
BUT...
if my grandmother had a beard she would be my grandfather.
And since a camel is a race horse designed by congress I don't have much hope that my fave pres will pull it off.
I think you have "beard"
Posted by Michael on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 02:33 pm
I think you have "beard" mixed up with another body part.
not really
Posted by cdjd on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 02:40 pm
on a strong source of testosterone or a strong Steroid look alike.
Except for a tumor generating the classic bearded lady who is sterile the only source of testosterone is therefore my grandfather's youknowwhats.
I stand corrected!
Posted by Michael on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 02:56 pm
I stand corrected!
Healthcare "plan"
Posted by onechosen1 on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 02:12 pm
I help run a university hospital in California. We have documented that once someone who was uninsured is insured, they use more healthcare than before, and thus the costs go up as a nation. In fact, that is one of the several core falacies of this reform plan... there is no way to have the national cost go down while insuring more people for more things on a first dollar basis. If they figure the aditional cost at $1T, figure it will be easily $3T+ by the time it is done.
correct and wrong
Posted by cdjd on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 03:07 pm
you are correct: possession of a health card increases usage proportional to the percent that is "picked up" by the insurance. This applies to diffenent degrees to all wealth scales.
Back in the late 80's (1986?) an internal study at Bain and Co. ( a National consulting group) predicted that if something was not done about rising costs of healthcare the cost would bankrupt most of the S&P 500 corporations by 1992. They concluded (for their multi billion client) than that will lead to Managed Care as almost inevitable conclusion.
However due to the increased usage of healthcare by the better insured across the board (my insurance pays for my gym mentality) and the increased bureaucracy (from 15% to 45% of the health dollar) it just postponed the inevitable.
GM did go backrupt but not in 1992 as predicted but in 2009.
Your logic can be useful to solve the problem and extrapolated to an optimal solution of:
No one gets health insurance except for major life changing items such as cancer,
That would solve the Corporate problems and the cost would be significantly less than the 10% Europe GNP cost.
I agree. Taxes will go through the roof and criple economy
Posted by delane on 22nd of Jul 2009 at 02:24 pm