Comments on: Medicare: The Problem and the Solution? http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:40:37 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: CSwinson http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-315680 CSwinson Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:59:36 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-315680 I have a solution to our high medical prices - it is the same solution to most of the problems in America today - unemployment, cost of healthcare, schools etc. Deport all the illegal aliens who are using our resources without paying for them. I have a solution to our high medical prices – it is the same solution to most of the problems in America today – unemployment, cost of healthcare, schools etc. Deport all the illegal aliens who are using our resources without paying for them.

]]> By: Dan http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-314283 Dan Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:57:59 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-314283 I traveled in Eastern Europe in 2006 with a class of MBA students. On of our objectives was to learn about corruption in these societies. We talked to several people from Prague Czech Rep; Bratislava Slovakia; Vienna Austria; Budapest Hungary and a couple from Croatia. All of these people had government run health care. Each person told of the necessity to bribe their doctors in order to receive prompt and proper medical attention. What we will have here is government rationed health care, a shortage of doctors and if you can afford to grease the skids you can have medical treatment and due to government inefficiency and corruption this will cost us more than our current system. I guarantee it. I traveled in Eastern Europe in 2006 with a class of MBA students. On of our objectives was to learn about corruption in these societies. We talked to several people from Prague Czech Rep; Bratislava Slovakia; Vienna Austria; Budapest Hungary and a couple from Croatia. All of these people had government run health care. Each person told of the necessity to bribe their doctors in order to receive prompt and proper medical attention.
What we will have here is government rationed health care, a shortage of doctors and if you can afford to grease the skids you can have medical treatment and due to government inefficiency and corruption this will cost us more than our current system. I guarantee it.

]]> By: Rubicon http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-313773 Rubicon Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:17:09 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-313773 The idea that government bureaucrats would decide what, or even 'if", I get medical treatment, is frightening. Lets face it, does anyone really think politicians, their friends & allies, would not get whatever they wanted/needed? Not one politician is proposing putting members of Congress into any of the proposed plans we see today. Why? Lets be real here, we will also have those w/ the money going elsewhere for treatment. There are a number of Central American countries that have set up 'health care centers' to treat those willing to pay. Ironically, those systems are actually cheaper than ours. (Probably because they pay less for just about everything.) The point is, (& I hate using this term but I am not sure how else to describe those who fit into this category), the elite, will get whatever they want since they can pay for it & afford to go where treatments are available. Just as Canadians come to America health care shopping, so too will many Americans go international shopping for health care elsewhere since a great deal of it will not be available here. That is not a solution to the problem, its just the answer those with the means will employ. Once we drag members of Congress & the government bureaucracies into whatever system these clowns come up with, then is when we will see a real effort to create a service oriented system that delivers quality care at reasonable prices. The idea that government bureaucrats would decide what, or even ‘if”, I get medical treatment, is frightening. Lets face it, does anyone really think politicians, their friends & allies, would not get whatever they wanted/needed? Not one politician is proposing putting members of Congress into any of the proposed plans we see today. Why? Lets be real here, we will also have those w/ the money going elsewhere for treatment. There are a number of Central American countries that have set up ‘health care centers’ to treat those willing to pay. Ironically, those systems are actually cheaper than ours. (Probably because they pay less for just about everything.)
The point is, (& I hate using this term but I am not sure how else to describe those who fit into this category), the elite, will get whatever they want since they can pay for it & afford to go where treatments are available.
Just as Canadians come to America health care shopping, so too will many Americans go international shopping for health care elsewhere since a great deal of it will not be available here. That is not a solution to the problem, its just the answer those with the means will employ.
Once we drag members of Congress & the government bureaucracies into whatever system these clowns come up with, then is when we will see a real effort to create a service oriented system that delivers quality care at reasonable prices.

]]> By: Caestal http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-313056 Caestal Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:26:23 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-313056 "Government run programs will always be run less effectively than programs that are market based." The only exception to that I have run across is in the Military. Because we didn't have to worry about things like frivolous lawsuits, the "right" to whatever treatment a patient heard about on Oprah this week or getting sued if we told someone "you don't need medical attention, go away" we are able to provide rapid medical attention to the people who actually needed it, at the level they needed it and in a reasonably cost-efficient manner. I can't speak to the VA system, but the actual in-Service medical was top notch. “Government run programs will always be run
less effectively than programs that are
market based.”
The only exception to that I have run across is in the Military. Because we didn’t have to worry about things like frivolous lawsuits, the “right” to whatever treatment a patient heard about on Oprah this week or getting sued if we told someone “you don’t need medical attention, go away” we are able to provide rapid medical attention to the people who actually needed it, at the level they needed it and in a reasonably cost-efficient manner. I can’t speak to the VA system, but the actual in-Service medical was top notch.

]]> By: Juliet http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-311979 Juliet Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:13:23 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-311979 In my area so many doctors are not taking any government insurance new patients. I have a non Medicare/Medicaid govnerment insurance and have been looking for a doctor for months. In my area so many doctors are not taking any government insurance new patients. I have a non Medicare/Medicaid govnerment insurance and have been looking for a doctor for months.

]]> By: venividivici http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-311965 venividivici Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:02:25 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-311965 <i>12. tom: I am still waiting for an answer to why Bush et al made it illegal for Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate prescription drug prices…. Jun 27, 2009 - 8:35 am</i> Probably because less drug company profitability means less drug company R&D means less new drugs. I know that Leftists think people just do stuff like create new drugs for the sake of creating new drugs, but, in point of fact, it takes some kind of monetary incentive to spur people to put in the long hours necessary to produce innovations. If you idiots could get that through your thick skulls some day, I would be very happy. 12. tom:

I am still waiting for an answer to why Bush et al made it illegal for Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate prescription drug prices….
Jun 27, 2009 – 8:35 am

Probably because less drug company profitability means less drug company R&D means less new drugs.

I know that Leftists think people just do stuff like create new drugs for the sake of creating new drugs, but, in point of fact, it takes some kind of monetary incentive to spur people to put in the long hours necessary to produce innovations.

If you idiots could get that through your thick skulls some day, I would be very happy.

]]> By: medical insurance http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-311911 medical insurance Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:31:27 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-311911 Market-based policies are more cost effective for the government - and therefore the taxpayers- than publicly funded healthcare. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, January 2005, if every uninsured individual was covered by a government program such as Medicaid, the cost to the federal and state governments is approximately $2000 each. If, however, low-income and modest-income Americans could purchase their own health insurance by utilizing a $1000 tax credit, the federal government would save 50% of that money. With over 45 million uninsured Americans, that savings would be substantial indeed. Market-based insurance would not only be more affordable health coverage, it would also provide consumers with more choice. Because savings come from a tax credit, the option to choose insurance companies, policies and doctors is left to the person who purchases the insurance, not a group of politicians. Health insurance needs vary widely from one individual to the next and having the ability to choose the options that work best for an individual's circumstances is fundamental to quality health care. Market-based policies are more cost effective for the government – and therefore the taxpayers- than publicly funded healthcare. According to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, January 2005, if every uninsured individual was covered by a government program such as Medicaid, the cost to the federal and state governments is approximately $2000 each. If, however, low-income and modest-income Americans could purchase their own health insurance by utilizing a $1000 tax credit, the federal government would save 50% of that money. With over 45 million uninsured Americans, that savings would be substantial indeed.
Market-based insurance would not only be more affordable health coverage, it would also provide consumers with more choice. Because savings come from a tax credit, the option to choose insurance companies, policies and doctors is left to the person who purchases the insurance, not a group of politicians. Health insurance needs vary widely from one individual to the next and having the ability to choose the options that work best for an individual’s circumstances is fundamental to quality health care.

]]> By: medical coverage http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-311907 medical coverage Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:30:12 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-311907 Government run programs will always be run less effectively than programs that are market based. Market-based medical insurance policies look to the private sector for insurance coverage rather than the government. Supporters of market-based policies believe they are the only way to give the consumer control and choice, as well as fostering competition to keep costs down and quality high. Government run programs will always be run less effectively than programs that are market based. Market-based medical insurance policies look to the private sector for insurance coverage rather than the government. Supporters of market-based policies believe they are the only way to give the consumer control and choice, as well as fostering competition to keep costs down and quality high.

]]> By: tom http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-311650 tom Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:35:47 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-311650 I am still waiting for an answer to why Bush et al made it illegal for Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate prescription drug prices.... I am still waiting for an answer to why Bush et al made it illegal for Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate prescription drug prices….

]]> By: canuck http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/medicare-the-problem-and-the-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-311417 canuck Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:03:27 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=59719#comment-311417 This article is good but understates many of the problems actually created by the M&M's...Medicare and Medicaid. For hospitals they are able to recover about 82% of their actual costs (Many of them silly to meet Federal regulations) through a combination of DRG (single payment for a diagnosis irrespective of acuity or cost) and a number of clawbacks. For us in 2007 with high Medicare population it meant shifting $802/insured bed/day just to compensate for the M&M shortfall. If the insured base is eroded, hospitals with high M&M usage will either fold or ration care. There will be a parallel system for "payers". The arguments made by the first comment poster are spurious. His first point is meaningless when one considers that those that are actually keeping the system afloat (those patients with insurance or self-paying) are going to abandon (or be forced to abandon) the role of supporting the underfunded when they join the government plan, irrespective of acuity. Second, point is nonsense. The AMA can't even speak for doctors let alone restrict Medical school size and admissions. Government under the Clintons reduced the GME positions creating our specialist shortage which will get worse when Medicare funding is diverted. Your next generation of General Surgeons are training right now in Bangladesh. The AMA has no role; any new medical school will be financed by government and will not be private...not a great business model. Finally, his point of "unfairness" is only valid for a small segment of the "uninsured". Of the "47 Million", ten million were (2007) illegals, eleven million were eligible for the M&Ms and and many millions were simply not willing to spend the money on insurance even though they made more than $75,000 per year and were employed. One to two million are on transition between jobs at any one time (making the two year average is a better evaluation). The concept of throwing out the whole for a few is what we heard from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd...one of them is obviously writing here today under the non de plume of "John Moore". This article is good but understates many of the problems actually created by the M&M’s…Medicare and Medicaid. For hospitals they are able to recover about 82% of their actual costs (Many of them silly to meet Federal regulations) through a combination of DRG (single payment for a diagnosis irrespective of acuity or cost) and a number of clawbacks. For us in 2007 with high Medicare population it meant shifting $802/insured bed/day just to compensate for the M&M shortfall. If the insured base is eroded, hospitals with high M&M usage will either fold or ration care. There will be a parallel system for “payers”.

The arguments made by the first comment poster are spurious. His first point is meaningless when one considers that those that are actually keeping the system afloat (those patients with insurance or self-paying) are going to abandon (or be forced to abandon) the role of supporting the underfunded when they join the government plan, irrespective of acuity.

Second, point is nonsense. The AMA can’t even speak for doctors let alone restrict Medical school size and admissions. Government under the Clintons reduced the GME positions creating our specialist shortage which will get worse when Medicare funding is diverted. Your next generation of General Surgeons are training right now in Bangladesh. The AMA has no role; any new medical school will be financed by government and will not be private…not a great business model.

Finally, his point of “unfairness” is only valid for a small segment of the “uninsured”. Of the “47 Million”, ten million were (2007) illegals, eleven million were eligible for the M&Ms and and many millions were simply not willing to spend the money on insurance even though they made more than $75,000 per year and were employed. One to two million are on transition between jobs at any one time (making the two year average is a better evaluation).

The concept of throwing out the whole for a few is what we heard from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd…one of them is obviously writing here today under the non de plume of “John Moore”.

]]>