Posts
1743
Joined
8/30/2007
Location
Lehi, UT
US
Edited Date/Time
1/24/2012 12:20pm
So everyone keeps saying that the way to lower healthcare costs is to provide competition.
Everyone knows where I stand on private insurance companies competing with the government (they just can't do it...it's going to put the private companies out of business), so I don't want to debate that.
And besides the fact that there is already competition out there (no one company has a monopoly on the health insurance busines)....they are do the same things blah blah blah blah...that's a left wing talking point nothing more nothing less.
But on the front of "competition"...is the main gripe with healthcare costs, the costs of insurance or the cost charged by the hospitals and doctors?
Seems they are inter-related to me...if hospitals and doctors didn't charge so much, the insurance companies wouldn't have to charge such high premiums to stay afloat.
So if the government is planning to bring competition (that's laughable to even type) to the industry by providing an insurance alternative for Americans...they are going to set the bar (as low as possible) for the prices available for insurance.
So say they do that...all the sudden John Doe can get government insurance for his family for $100/month....right now he's paying $500/month for an identical plan to the government plan.
So where does that leave the private company? they've got to drop their premium to $100 to stay competative...right? (I've already explained how there is no way to justify a higher premium in the insurance industry, a dozen times or more already, so I won't do it again).
The problem is, are the doctors and hospitals-who set the prices of healthcare, really-going to feel bad for the private insurance companies and start charging less all on their own?
The government isn't providing any "competition" on that front (a government hospital that charges half what a private hospital does for example), so what's the motivation for hospitals and doctors to charge less for their survices? And isn't this really where the prices need to come down?
Is the government just going to start paying the docs and hospitals whatever they (the government) feels the proceedure should cost...regardless of what the doctors charge?
And if the government is going to do that, why not just make a regulation that patients can pay whatever they want (maybe set some minimums or something)....
How is the "competition" on the insurance side of things, going to force the prices down on the provider side of things? I'm dumb...apparently because I don't know.
Everyone knows where I stand on private insurance companies competing with the government (they just can't do it...it's going to put the private companies out of business), so I don't want to debate that.
And besides the fact that there is already competition out there (no one company has a monopoly on the health insurance busines)....they are do the same things blah blah blah blah...that's a left wing talking point nothing more nothing less.
But on the front of "competition"...is the main gripe with healthcare costs, the costs of insurance or the cost charged by the hospitals and doctors?
Seems they are inter-related to me...if hospitals and doctors didn't charge so much, the insurance companies wouldn't have to charge such high premiums to stay afloat.
So if the government is planning to bring competition (that's laughable to even type) to the industry by providing an insurance alternative for Americans...they are going to set the bar (as low as possible) for the prices available for insurance.
So say they do that...all the sudden John Doe can get government insurance for his family for $100/month....right now he's paying $500/month for an identical plan to the government plan.
So where does that leave the private company? they've got to drop their premium to $100 to stay competative...right? (I've already explained how there is no way to justify a higher premium in the insurance industry, a dozen times or more already, so I won't do it again).
The problem is, are the doctors and hospitals-who set the prices of healthcare, really-going to feel bad for the private insurance companies and start charging less all on their own?
The government isn't providing any "competition" on that front (a government hospital that charges half what a private hospital does for example), so what's the motivation for hospitals and doctors to charge less for their survices? And isn't this really where the prices need to come down?
Is the government just going to start paying the docs and hospitals whatever they (the government) feels the proceedure should cost...regardless of what the doctors charge?
And if the government is going to do that, why not just make a regulation that patients can pay whatever they want (maybe set some minimums or something)....
How is the "competition" on the insurance side of things, going to force the prices down on the provider side of things? I'm dumb...apparently because I don't know.
How is the government providing a cheaper insurance alternative going to lower provider costs (fees charged by docs and hospitals)?
Seems if you address insurance costs without addressing provider costs, you're on the fast track to BKing the system (since premiums will go down, but if provider costs stay the same, you won't make enough in premiums to pay the docs and hospitals what they charge).
Do you have any insight into that?
Do you have any insight into this:
How is the government providing a cheaper insurance alternative going to lower provider costs (fees charged by docs and hospitals)?
The Shop
If the largest HC Provider in the country, the Federal Government, says an aspirin ain't worth $500 and refuses to pay it, the hospital or provider has the choice of charging a reasonable price or opt out of the system and potentially lose access to the largest patient base in the world
Soooo, why don't they just tell the providers and insurance companies what they can charge now, and stay out of the healthcare business?
Seriously, that would cost waaaaaaaay less....
(On a serious side note, assuming the government does get this passed and provides a cheeper (free) alternative to the private insurance companies...what will happen, now that everyone has access to insurance, is the private companies are going to drop every single high risk person on their books and only insure the healthy. Since they are only insuring the healthy, they will be able to charge less (to "compete"...i still laugh every time I type that...with the government) and hopefully remain competitive (LMAO) and somehow still profitable...I can almost see that working. They couldn't dump all the high risk people now because they'd have no insurance options and the public outcry would be deafening.
And boy oh boy I bet all those insurance executives are wishing they'd of policed themselves (or spent WAAAAAY more on lobbiests)....stupid people.)
Soooo, why don't they just tell the providers and insurance companies what they can charge now, and stay out of the healthcare business?
This is why I have said, everyone agrees the system is fucked up and out of control, so you will have two choices;
1) The Government essentially take over all aspect of healthcare and tell privately held companies what to charge, pay and who they must insure.
2) The Government provides competition and an alternative choice to the present monopoly system of healthcare, allowing people to choose between private or public HC
Seems to me, you being against what you commonly deem "socialism" and all that, choice 1 is a "no way"
At least with choice 2, you can choose whatever plan you want
Either way, everyone is covered and costs will come down due to less people paying their bills and/or declaring bankruptcy due to HC costs
If every bill got paid, costs would come down, no?
Either way the federal government is going to be telling insurance companies and providers what they can charge (directly in choice one, and indirectly in choice two)...That is the constant between both of your choices.
I'd take choice one any day of the week (assuming that those are our only choices) because the government isn't in the healthcare business. Because they can tell providers and insurance companies what to charge without "taking over all aspects of healthcare"...leave the private companies private, just put limits on what they can charge and who they can (can't) insure.
Seriously...over a trillion-frikkin'-dollars for government ran healthcare, when they could just regulate the providers/insurance companies and accomplish the same goal for a fraction of the cost...I mean really...
You will be given tax credits based on your income. You are free to buy what you want with it, either private or public.
It can be done but why are we paying top dollar for it. The insurance companies as well as private organizations. They create a contract to pay within 30 days at a reduced rate. These groups are across the country.
I may be missing the mark here but it sure seems like a monkey fucking a football.
The government will only tell them that the coverage has to be full coverage...no half assed shit
you said monkey that makes you a racist ; hence forth your opinions are tainted and carry no value
Do you understand now???
If I paid cash for an appointment with my doctor, it might cost $250. But because this doctor is part of my insurance company's "network", they only charge me $180. And that's the sacrifice they make to be with this insurance company.
How is this any different?
But I'd prefer that, over government healthcare...
But, since you brough it up, why cna't the government just do that to both providers and insurers, WITHOUT getting in the insurance business (say you can only charge "this")? Regulation...it's better than government healthcare.
Also, I' ve seen things work completely different from what you just said...when I split my head open last fall and went to the ER to get it stitched (glued actually)...the doc told me I could pay $150 cash right then, or he could bill my insurance company just over $900 (my deductible is $1000)...so I paid cash.
Same thing with my wifes OB...If we paid for the pre-natal, delivery and post-natal care at the time of the first visit, it was $2700...if we paid it through our insurance company it was like $4,000 or something...(we have a $5000 matertinity copay). And those charges didn't include the hospital, anesthesiologist, or any other non OB fees. (entire deliver was just under $10K all together).
Pit Row
Do you acknowledge that the government will be telling insurance companies what to charge?
In one case, the people get NO choice (your way). In the other case, we get a choice.
If the private companies can provide a better service in a more timely manner, they can market that and charge more for it.
If they plan to continue shitty overpriced service with every intention of looking for a reason to deny your illness/ailment claim, then they will die.
Provide a better product and you can charge a premium
Provide a shit product and watch your clientele scatter
I just switched insurance companies...there is a choice, now. And if the government simply makes everything more affordable via regulation rather than competition, and enforces some pre-existing conditions requirements and things, people will get a choice and it will even be affordable...AND even better the government will not be in the healthcare business.
Since the government is going to be dicating prices either way (regulation or competition), yeah, I'd prefer they stay out of the healthcare business and just regulate it. regulation isn't ideal, but it's better than regulation via competition.
The CARE IS THE SAME: same docs, same hospitals, turn times will be the same, care given will be the same, expertice of care givers will be the same, everything will be the same EXCEPT who collects your premiums and who processes your claim. And with those minor differences, there isn't enough meat to justify a higher cost.
All a private company can do to justify a higher premium is be more efficient at collecting payments and processing claims...Big frikkin' deal....that ain't worth more money.
IF (and I say "if" because it won't be the case), the private insurance companies had their own docs, and hospitals (that were not available to the government insureds) then yes, they'd be able to justify higher premiums. Because they could advertise that they have faster turn times, better educated docs and nurses, more luxurious hosptials and doctors offices, you know IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER CARE, then they'd be able to justify the higher premiums. But again, that won't be the case...they'll have to hang their higher premiums on the "processing claims and recieving premiums" points...and it ain't worth it pay more for more efficient claims and premium processing.
So again, if they want to compete they are going to have to charge whatever the government charges...and as a result, the government is going to be setting the bar for premium amounts and thus, telling private insurance companies what they have to charge (if they want to stay in business).
I'm not sure why you dont' get this?
If the government says they can all only charge this much, and they can all do ONLY this type of coverage, etc., then we are stuck ONLY with that.
If the government starts one and just practices what they would otherwise preach, you still have a choice.
That's a sad commentary on our present HC system, huh?
this is what gets me about the gov......oh we cant tell them what to do BUT if we start an insurance program of our own, we will tell them what they are going to do.
Post a reply to: Help me out...healthcare...competition