OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Y2HH]

I'm not defending overpricing. I'm criticizing Reason's solution: price-information-driven choices. As long as my insurance company is bearing the burden above my deductible or co-pay, I have no real incentive to price-shop my medical procedures.

 

That clip was posted along with my own comments highlighting the overpricing.

 

I wasn't intending to say this is exactly how we should do things across the board, my intention was made clear by what I said before the video. You ignored that, and it was pretty important to NOT ignore that.

[StrangeSox]

The fact is, even if you wanted to "price shop", you couldn't do it. It's general practice in that industry to not post prices until after the procedure was completed.

 

Right, and pricing-based-on-your-particular-insurance-sub-plan complicates things quite a bit as well. Which is why the model that works for out-patient non-critical surgery centers might not be a panacea for the entire health care industry.

 

This is from the surgery center's own website:

 

If you have a high deductible or are part of a self-insured plan at a large company, you owe it to yourself or your business to take a look at our facility and pricing which is listed on this site. If you are considering a trip to a foreign country to have your surgery, you should look here first. Finally, if you have no insurance at all, this facility will provide quality and pricing that we believe are unmatched.

 

Their model is helpful if you're in those situations. It's not if you have a plan like the majority of insured Americans do.

[StrangeSox]

That clip was posted along with my own comments highlighting the overpricing.

 

I wasn't intending to say this is exactly how we should do things across the board, my intention was made clear by what I said before the video. You ignored that, and it was pretty important to NOT ignore that.

 

I chose to comment on the thing I was critical of (Reason's proposed solution) instead of the thing I wasn't (health care services can be severely over-priced).

[Iwritecode]

The point wasn't to advocate that everyone pay for their own health care, as SS tried to imply.

 

The point was to highlight that doctors/hospitals, with the enabler that the insurance companies have become, are jacking up costs an amount that can only be considered "insane". I understand having a profit margin...but selling a drug for 600$ that you paid 1.50$ for is just astounding.

 

Along these same lines, I worked at an Osco one time. As an employee discount we were allowed to buy things at cost + 10%. One of the first things that was pointed out to me was that I could buy a bottle of asprin for about 47 cents. I don't remember the retail price but I'm sure it was at least 2 or 3 dollars.

 

[Y2HH]

Along these same lines, I worked at an Osco one time. As an employee discount we were allowed to buy things at cost + 10%. One of the first things that was pointed out to me was that I could buy a bottle of asprin for about 47 cents. I don't remember the retail price but I'm sure it was at least 2 or 3 dollars.

 

Same experience, I also worked at Osco for a spell. Many times you could buy products for almost 80% off retail.

[StrangeSox]

Op-ed on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of "Pay for Performance" hospital models

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/...ctors.html?_r=0

 

(can we make this a healthcare catch-all thread?)

[Y2HH]

Op-ed on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of "Pay for Performance" hospital models

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/...ctors.html?_r=0

 

(can we make this a healthcare catch-all thread?)

 

It was, you all renamed it to annoy me.

[BigSqwert]

(can we make this a healthcare catch-all thread?)

 

Regarding the labeling of GMO foods, the state of Washington has enough signatures to propose a legislative initiative. Seeing that marijuana and gay marriage passed, I feel good about this one passing too. I love this state.

Edited February 3, 2013 by BigSqwert

[Balta1701]

Regarding the labeling of GMO foods, the state of Washington has enough signatures to propose a legislative initiative. Seeing that marijuana and gay marriage passed, I feel good about this one passing too. I love this state.

After the amount of money that came into CA on that issue...don't be confident. You've got an uphill climb, even if the polling seems to be on your side.

[Jake]

I'm strongly against the mandatory GMO labeling. Not until there is a proven issue. We can assume it is GMO if it is not labeled non-GMO. It will make people believe GMO is dangerous when there is no evidence of that. We don't need to promote less efficient farming methods until we know it is warranted.

[Balta1701]

I'm strongly against the mandatory GMO labeling. Not until there is a proven issue. We can assume it is GMO if it is not labeled non-GMO. It will make people believe GMO is dangerous when there is no evidence of that. We don't need to promote less efficient farming methods until we know it is warranted.

So why do we allow people to label products as Organic? It's less efficient and studies really don't establish firmly that it's significantly better for you.

[Jake]

So why do we allow people to label products as Organic? It's less efficient and studies really don't establish firmly that it's significantly better for you.

 

Allowing them to label their product to make it look good is completely different than mandating that everyone else label their product to make themselves look worse.

[Y2HH]

Allowing them to label their product to make it look good is completely different than mandating that everyone else label their product to make themselves look worse.

 

Agreed.

 

And if we've learned anything from the past, looking at the label "organic" for instance, it's a lot of grey area.

 

There are 4 labels for Organic:

USDA 100% Organic

USDA Organic (which is ~95% organic)

Made with Organic Ingredients (which is ~75% organic)

 

Aside from the 100% organic label, which you almost never see...those are all completely clear. So, if you read a label, made with Organic ingredients, it means 25% of whatever it is, isn't organic at all...which IMO, invalidates trying to eat organic in the first place, not to mention paying a premium for something that's not what it's trying to appear to be.

 

But I agree with Jake's point here...it's a witch-hunt when there is absolutely no science backing it. And considering the people trying to promote this usually lean on science, it's funny that when science doesn't fit their ideological opinions, it's no longer of importance.

[Jake]

I understand that some industry powers are not eager to allow research to happen -- that's not good. Our legislation should instead be for funding/making legal research on the topic.

[BigSqwert]

How many long term independent studies, 20 years plus, have been made specifically on the effects of GMO foods in humans?

Edited February 3, 2013 by BigSqwert

[Y2HH]

I understand that some industry powers are not eager to allow research to happen -- that's not good. Our legislation should instead be for funding/making legal research on the topic.

 

This happens in every industry, but the research gets done either way. Same can be said of the tobacco industry and their unlimited money, but the research happened anyway. Same can be said of the pharma industry...again, the research happened anyway. And with this industry, the research will still happen, regardless of how much they try to prevent it. It always does.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Well, finally finished the 28 page Time Magazine expose on why health care costs are killing us.

 

Really good article overall. Very well researched, very well done, example after example of how the costs paid at the hospital level and the care/examination level are completely out of control.

 

The stuff that really hit me, particularly after watching how the Obamacare debate went, was how well managed Medicare really is...at least when Congress allows it to use its muscle. It's not cheap, but its management and cost control blows the rest of the system out of the water.

 

As the author goes through, it's sorta remarkable, he points out the big thing that could save Medicare a ton of money (negotiating drug prices), but then to try to find other savings, he's advocating for things like "making sure middle class people pay $10 for a test instead of $1" which would save tiny amounts around the edge.

 

Same thing with the shots at the trial lawyers, it feels like he's including those criticisms because he feels he won't be respected if he doesn't take those shots at both sides rather than focusing solely on the $100 billion that could be saved by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices or the hundreds of billions that could be saved by opening Medicare up to everyone. He does get this to fall out, but then rejects it solely on the grounds that it's politically impossible.

In fact, those numbers would seem to argue for lowering the Medicare age, not raising it — and not just from Janice S.’s standpoint but also from the taxpayers’ side of the equation. That’s not a liberal argument for protecting entitlements while the deficit balloons. It’s just a matter of hardheaded arithmetic.

Now that I really focus on his end-suggestions, it's remarkable how the author sort of allows "what's politically possible" to leak in in some places but ignores it in the others. He doesn't advance "expanding Medicare to everyone" solely on the grounds that it can't happen, but then chastises Democrats by name for protecting the trial lawyers...and then...chastises no one by name for preventing Medicare from negotiating drug prices or keeping Medicare closed to younger people.

 

One other part of his case I found really interesting was just calling BS on the notion that doctors and hospitals can't make due with the "low" payments Medicare makes.

 

Anyway, yeah, there's nothing on his "recommendation" page that I'd have any problem with, including the random jabs at Democrats and trial lawyers (unmatched by shots at any other lobby/party).

[StrangeSox]

One thing I've heard about the comparisons between US and European doctors: yeah, Euro doctors earn less, but they also don't come out of college with several hundred thousand dollars of debt. So that's a factor in our healthcare costs, too.

[Balta1701]

One thing I've heard about the comparisons between US and European doctors: yeah, Euro doctors earn less, but they also don't come out of college with several hundred thousand dollars of debt. So that's a factor in our healthcare costs, too.

He does note that.

 

One thing probably worth criticizing is that if he's going to spend 28 pages writing this article, he could take the time to work out the math of some of these things. How does the added income from US doctors compare to the average added debt? Is that a significant overpay? Not asked.

[StrangeSox]

Arkansas is the latest GOP-run state to accept the Medicaid expansion. Except, it's going to be through a privatized system and not directly through Medicare. Which means it's going to be more convoluted, more expensive and less effective.

 

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archi...?wpisrc=nl_wonk

[Jenksismyhero]

LOL, lawmakers want to be exempted from Obamacare:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obam...ides-90610.html

 

 

[StrangeSox]

LOL, lawmakers want to be exempted from Obamacare:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obam...ides-90610.html

Hasn't this story been running since 2010?

 

edit: also obligatory "lol politico"

Edited April 25, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Hasn't this story been running since 2010?

 

edit: also obligatory "lol politico"

Here's a long enough explanation that I'm not going to add an excerpt.

[StrangeSox]

yeah it's the same thing that's been circling around forever. hence, "lol politico" or as it's also known, "tiger beat on the potomac"

[Balta1701]

yeah it's the same thing that's been circling around forever. hence, "lol politico" or as it's also known, "tiger beat on the potomac"

That means nothing to me?