towermonkey wrote: Using cars to illustrate a point is a bit different than equating the two IMO. PS is right about this - if we had to pay for healthcare without the aid of insurance, we would opt for cheaper choices and do more shopping around.
That's pretty much what we do now, even with insurance. We go without doctor visits and attend the health fairs as an alternative to regular healthcare. We analyze every injury thinking "Do we really need a trip to the emergency room? I can probably do without stitches. That doesn't look so bad." After all, if we make a claim on insurance, the premiums go up. Hell, it goes up even if we don't make a claim.
If we all had to pay out of pocket, would research keep up the current pace? I doubt that, since medical facility income would seriously drop off. People would do without rather than pay for medical care.
I seriously doubt that shopping around for healthcare without insurance would lower the cost. In terms of the "car vs. healthcare" analogy, more people would just "walk."
towermonkey wrote: Using cars to illustrate a point is a bit different than equating the two IMO. PS is right about this - if we had to pay for healthcare without the aid of insurance, we would opt for cheaper choices and do more shopping around.
That's pretty much what we do now, even with insurance. We go without doctor visits and attend the health fairs as an alternative to regular healthcare. We analyze every injury thinking "Do we really need a trip to the emergency room? I can probably do without stitches. That doesn't look so bad." After all, if we make a claim on insurance, the premiums go up. Hell, it goes up even if we don't make a claim.
If you're questioning whether you need a trip to ER, then you probably don't. Unnecessary ER visits greatly increase medical costs to everyone through insurance by spreading the cost to everyone. Thanks for proving PS's point.
If we all had to pay out of pocket, would research keep up the current pace? I doubt that, since medical facility income would seriously drop off. People would do without rather than pay for medical care.
So you believe the total "pie" that is spent on medical care right now with insurance as the middle man would drop significantly if we had to pay ourselves. Probably, but you are thinking of it as a complete absence of anything that resembles insurance, where that would never be the reality, so I guess PS's car comparison is faulty. If healthcare compacts were to become the standard, there would be a lot of shopping going on and there would then, as now, be breaks for volume.
I seriously doubt that shopping around for healthcare without insurance would lower the cost. In terms of the "car vs. healthcare" analogy, more people would just "walk."
towermonkey wrote:
If you're questioning whether you need a trip to ER, then you probably don't. Unnecessary ER visits greatly increase medical costs to everyone through insurance by spreading the cost to everyone. Thanks for proving PS's point.
That kind of thinking could kill you.....If you are questioning if you should go to the ER.....GO....it might save your life.
Healthcare is a very subjective thing....one size does not fit all......you can't pick a package off the shelf that is "your" healthcare....you tailor your care to fit you...and what you need.
Thinking that people can just go out and purchase themselves what they need, and afford it.....is crazy. Even if a specialist cut his costs by 50% of what insurance currently pays and hospitals cut their costs 50%, many people could not afford to pay those costs without insurance, I know I couldn't. Yet cutting costs below that would make being a doctor a very unattractive profession.
And what do you suppose the current reform will accomplish? It will cut reimbursement to medical professionals significantly and leave us with a shortage of qualified doctors. That's why I suggested healthcare compacts as an alternative to "for profit" insurance as a way to spread the risk and the cost. I have no idea where you came up with "Thinking that people can just go out and purchase themselves what they need, and afford it.....is crazy.", but it makes a good strawman. Of course its crazy which is why I didn't suggest it.
towermonkey wrote: And what do you suppose the current reform will accomplish? It will cut reimbursement to medical professionals significantly and leave us with a shortage of qualified doctors. That's why I suggested healthcare compacts as an alternative to "for profit" insurance as a way to spread the risk and the cost. I have no idea where you came up with "Thinking that people can just go out and purchase themselves what they need, and afford it.....is crazy.", but it makes a good strawman. Of course its crazy which is why I didn't suggest it.
no strawman there...it refers back to the car "analogy".
Your strawman, so-to-speak, is thinking I like the current reform....I don't. I still want a single payer, not for profit, healthcare system.
towermonkey wrote: And what do you suppose the current reform will accomplish? It will cut reimbursement to medical professionals significantly and leave us with a shortage of qualified doctors. That's why I suggested healthcare compacts as an alternative to "for profit" insurance as a way to spread the risk and the cost. I have no idea where you came up with "Thinking that people can just go out and purchase themselves what they need, and afford it.....is crazy.", but it makes a good strawman. Of course its crazy which is why I didn't suggest it.
no strawman there...it refers back to the car "analogy".
Your strawman, so-to-speak, is thinking I like the current reform....I don't. I still want a single payer, not for profit, healthcare system.
I believe insurance has managed to help make health care costs exorbitant. I am always amazed at the profits that places like Kiser make. 2.5 BILLION in 9 months. Wow.
towermonkey wrote: And what do you suppose the current reform will accomplish? It will cut reimbursement to medical professionals significantly and leave us with a shortage of qualified doctors. That's why I suggested healthcare compacts as an alternative to "for profit" insurance as a way to spread the risk and the cost. I have no idea where you came up with "Thinking that people can just go out and purchase themselves what they need, and afford it.....is crazy.", but it makes a good strawman. Of course its crazy which is why I didn't suggest it.
no strawman there...it refers back to the car "analogy".
Your strawman, so-to-speak, is thinking I like the current reform....I don't. I still want a single payer, not for profit, healthcare system.
Well, the car analogy wasn't mine although I argued for the logic of it. Some people argue everything as literal and can't see when a valid point is being made because of that. Where did I say that you like the current reform? Are you telling me what I think now? Or do you just feel the need to argue?
towermonkey wrote: And what do you suppose the current reform will accomplish? It will cut reimbursement to medical professionals significantly and leave us with a shortage of qualified doctors. That's why I suggested healthcare compacts as an alternative to "for profit" insurance as a way to spread the risk and the cost. I have no idea where you came up with "Thinking that people can just go out and purchase themselves what they need, and afford it.....is crazy.", but it makes a good strawman. Of course its crazy which is why I didn't suggest it.
no strawman there...it refers back to the car "analogy".
Your strawman, so-to-speak, is thinking I like the current reform....I don't. I still want a single payer, not for profit, healthcare system.
I believe insurance has managed to help make health care costs exorbitant. I am always amazed at the profits that places like Kiser make. 2.5 BILLION in 9 months. Wow.
I don't think that single payer will reduce costs simply because I don't think government is very good at running business. I do agree that taking the insurance profit motive out of healthcare will greatly reduce prices but only if insurance is replaced by something other than government. I was a proponent of single payer for quit a while until I head some medical professionals interviewed on the subject and the references to Medicare. If we had Medicare for all, we would not have many of the professionals that are currently employed because Medicare pays almost nothing. Those doctors that accept it take it and make up the difference on those of us with insurance. If that was all there was, they would go out of business.
towermonkey wrote: If we had Medicare for all, we would not have many of the professionals that are currently employed because Medicare pays almost nothing. Those doctors that accept it take it and make up the difference on those of us with insurance. If that was all there was, they would go out of business.
let me get this straight.....some are arguing that if we paid for our own medical needs the cost would go down......ok, that's a good thing, but if you change to medicare for all, the costs would go down and that's a bad thing?
