BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
ESS Tuning
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-15-2013, 02:50 PM   #1
MiddleAgedAl
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sitting down, facing the keyboard

Posts: 318
iTrader: (0)

This is too good not to share....

__________________
If you want something you've never had before, then you better be prepared to do something you've never done before.
MiddleAgedAl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-07-2014, 03:01 AM   #2
badra100
New Member
 
Drives: My car looks nice.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: pakistan

Posts: 11
iTrader: (0)

It is great saying by Milton. Federal Govt is so lazy.
badra100 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2014, 09:08 PM   #3
42
240,000 Miles
 
42's Avatar
 
Drives: Moon
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Earth

Posts: 33
iTrader: (0)

Agree
42 is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2014, 09:47 PM   #4
squishy
Private First Class
 
Drives: 2013 X1 35i
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbia, MD

Posts: 187
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42 View Post
Agree
X2
squishy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-05-2014, 05:10 PM   #5
ecleland
First Lieutenant
 
ecleland's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335d (sold)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas

Posts: 304
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 Mini  [0.00]
Easily applied to Health Care as well. Put the government in charge of health care and within 5 years (or less) there will be a shortage of health care!
ecleland is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-18-2014, 06:13 PM   #6
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 460
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecleland View Post
Easily applied to Health Care as well. Put the government in charge of health care and within 5 years (or less) there will be a shortage of health care!
But nobody is suggesting that the government be in charge of health care (as it is in England and Canada, where most of the docs are government employees). Just health care insurance (as it is in pretty much every advanced democracy, except us).

And, by every numerical standard those other countries have just as good health care as us, and vastly lower costs.

There is an oncoming shortage of family docs here. A lot of those in private practice have decided they don't want to deal with the chaos of private insurance companies any more, and have accepted salaried positions in places like hospitals. How I lost my last (excellent) doc. Another of my docs just stopped accepting insurance. Any insurance. Large group practices are becoming more common too, since they can afford to have an employee whose full time job is dealing with the insurance companies.

Those other countries with national health care insurance generally don't have that problem. Docs make less money, but have to deal with just one set of rules, and minimal paperwork, greatly reducing the hassle. So they generally have more docs/1000 people than we do. One of those numerical standards.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-18-2014 at 06:19 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2014, 01:13 AM   #7
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
But nobody is suggesting that the government be in charge of health care (as it is in England and Canada, where most of the docs are government employees). Just health care insurance (as it is in pretty much every advanced democracy, except us).

And, by every numerical standard those other countries have just as good health care as us, and vastly lower costs.

There is an oncoming shortage of family docs here. A lot of those in private practice have decided they don't want to deal with the chaos of private insurance companies any more, and have accepted salaried positions in places like hospitals. How I lost my last (excellent) doc. Another of my docs just stopped accepting insurance. Any insurance. Large group practices are becoming more common too, since they can afford to have an employee whose full time job is dealing with the insurance companies.

Those other countries with national health care insurance generally don't have that problem. Docs make less money, but have to deal with just one set of rules, and minimal paperwork, greatly reducing the hassle. So they generally have more docs/1000 people than we do. One of those numerical standards.
Sorry - not true on a number of levels:

1. By putting the government in charge of paying for healthcare, they are indeed in charge of healthcare. Further, they are dictating what must be covered, what providers will be paid, significantly expanding Medicaid, etc. - they have assumed control of the vast majority of healthcare. Medicare Advantage is the most successful Medicare program offered - but Obamacare mandates cuts of 5-8% in payment rates over this year and next - by gutting the program, physicians and providers are leaving in droves, as it's no longer profitable.

2. US healthcare is quite superior to healthcare in other countries, especially when you adjust for how other countries collect statistics. In many countries they don't record a live birth until the infant is months or years old - so their mortality stats look much better. US cancer rates are significantly better (for example, European men have a 5 year cancer survival rate of 47.3% - US men have a 5 year rate of 66.3%). Canadian cancer survival rates are below the US as well. And they don't count cancers that are discovered post-death - we do.

3. Medicare and Medicaid (both government insurance programs) are about 2/3 of all healthcare in the US. Most docs will stop taking those insurances first, due to the crushing regulatory burden. And it's not getting better with Obamacare - it's exacerbating the problem of not having enough Primary Care docs. Not sure why you think other countries don't have the problem - Germany had over 3,000 docs leave the country a few years ago when they dropped payment rates.

Much of the cost of US healthcare is a direct result of contingency-based lawsuits - one recent study showed that physicians order 18% more testing, medications, etc., to defend themselves from potential lawsuits. If the authors of Obamacare really wanted to make a difference in healthcare, they would have addressed the lawsuit issue. But unfortunately, the #1 donor to Obama was the trial attorney's lobby.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>

Last edited by bbbbmw; 02-21-2014 at 01:23 AM.
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2014, 01:38 AM   #8
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 460
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Sorry - not true on a number of levels:

2. US healthcare is quite superior to healthcare in other countries, especially when you adjust for how other countries collect statistics. In many countries they don't record a live birth until the infant is months or years old - so their mortality stats look much better.

3. Medicare and Medicaid (both government insurance programs) are about 2/3 of all healthcare in the US.

Not sure why you think other countries don't have the problem - Germany had over 3,000 docs leave the country a few years ago when they dropped payment rates.
Not true on a number of levels. Just to go with the numerical data, which is what counts. And only the stuff I knew was very far off, and had data at my fingertips.

2. US healthcare is not superior, when you look at other advanced democracies. They don't play games with things like infant mortality, which is defined by most all advanced countries as death in the first year. The statistics are quite comparable, and they're a bad deal for us. 5 year cancer survival rates are a dubious and flawed measure (see below), our overall life expectancy, the real measure, is worse.

The five year survival data has a major problem. It's largely driven by breast and prostate cancer. And those data are skewed because of "lead time bias".

"Even more problematic, said Berry, is a problem cancer experts have only recently recognized: overdiagnosis. Because cancer screening is much more widespread in the United States than in Europe, especially for breast and prostate cancer, “we find many more cancers than are found in Europe,” he said. “These are cancers that tend to be slowly growing and many would never kill anyone.”

Screening therefore turns thousands of healthy people into cancer patients, even though their tumor would never threaten their health or life. Counting these cases, of which there are more in the United States than Europe, artificially inflates survival time, experts said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8380SA20120409

3. "According to the CBO report, federal spending on Medicare made up 21 percent of total U.S. health care expenditures in 2007, and the combined federal and state spending on Medicaid represented 16 percent."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...id-us-health-/

Whether or not some German doctors left private practice (as many in the US are doing also). The fact remains. They have almost twice as many docs per thousand as we do. 3.7 to 2.4.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS

No other advanced country relies on private insurance for basic health care. They all have switched from that system to a government based insurance system. And not one has switched back. If private insurance was better, somebody would have figured it out.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Similarly, government run health care insurance is the worst kind... except for all the others. It even works in Italy, a country not known for good government on pretty much every other level.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-21-2014 at 02:21 AM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2014, 05:39 AM   #9
Devious21
Lieutenant
 
Devious21's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 Z4M
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

Posts: 564
iTrader: (1)

.
__________________

|Evolve Airbox - Euro Headers - Strömung Exhaust - H&R Coils - 19" BBS CH-R|
Devious21 is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2014, 10:45 AM   #10
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Not true on a number of levels. Just to go with the numerical data, which is what counts. And only the stuff I knew was very far off, and had data at my fingertips.

2. US healthcare is not superior, when you look at other advanced democracies. They don't play games with things like infant mortality, which is defined by most all advanced countries as death in the first year. The statistics are quite comparable, and they're a bad deal for us. 5 year cancer survival rates are a dubious and flawed measure (see below), our overall life expectancy, the real measure, is worse.

The five year survival data has a major problem. It's largely driven by breast and prostate cancer. And those data are skewed because of "lead time bias".

"Even more problematic, said Berry, is a problem cancer experts have only recently recognized: overdiagnosis. Because cancer screening is much more widespread in the United States than in Europe, especially for breast and prostate cancer, “we find many more cancers than are found in Europe,” he said. “These are cancers that tend to be slowly growing and many would never kill anyone.”

Screening therefore turns thousands of healthy people into cancer patients, even though their tumor would never threaten their health or life. Counting these cases, of which there are more in the United States than Europe, artificially inflates survival time, experts said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8380SA20120409

3. "According to the CBO report, federal spending on Medicare made up 21 percent of total U.S. health care expenditures in 2007, and the combined federal and state spending on Medicaid represented 16 percent."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...id-us-health-/

Whether or not some German doctors left private practice (as many in the US are doing also). The fact remains. They have almost twice as many docs per thousand as we do. 3.7 to 2.4.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.PHYS.ZS

No other advanced country relies on private insurance for basic health care. They all have switched from that system to a government based insurance system. And not one has switched back. If private insurance was better, somebody would have figured it out.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Similarly, government run health care insurance is the worst kind... except for all the others. It even works in Italy, a country not known for good government on pretty much every other level.
2. Your point is arguing against itself - the fact that we have vastly better screening in the US is in itself evidence that we are providing better care. And when patients die from undiagnosed cancers, they are not recorded in other countries - so their stats are undeniably different. Here's a good article on the differences in recording infant mortality:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...scott-w-atlas#!

And the comment "screening turns thousands of healthy people into cancer patients" - what? That again makes me glad I live in the US...

3. It is 2/3's of all healthcare spend, when you consider government subsidies, etc.:

http://american.com/archive/2011/aug...ct-of-the-week

Of course no country has switched back - Why would a government relinquish control of a healthcare system? Most employed people in Canada, England, etc. have supplemental insurance policies so they don't have to deal with the government healthcare system.

Regarding Doctors - would you go to medical school for 12 years to make a job that pays what a 4 year business degree pays? If you don't pay doctors, you end up with a shortage of doctors.

Another cost issue - the US pays for the vast majority of drug and medical technlogy development for the entire world, precisely because we allow companies to make a profit on them - they are encouraged to invest.

Back to the OP - here's Milton Friedman's take on government healthcare:

__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2014, 09:25 PM   #11
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,163
iTrader: (0)

.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2014, 02:37 AM   #12
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 460
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
2. Your point is arguing against itself - the fact that we have vastly better screening in the US is in itself evidence that we are providing better care.

And the comment "screening turns thousands of healthy people into cancer patients" - what? That again makes me glad I live in the US...
I'm not sure you're getting it.

We conduct unnecessary and ineffective screenings for cancer. They identify people as having cancer who either do not have cancer or have a slow growing cancer that will not kill them. The patients are then often subject to additional procedures, such as removing organs, that cause serious side effects. Like impotence.

All this is a triple whammy. Poor healthcare, increased costs, bad outcomes. But it does inflate our "five year survival rate" data nicely.

This is why tests including PSA blood tests and mammograms are not recommended as screening techniques for the general population any more, but are reserved for specific target populations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unnecessary/

http://www.georgetown.edu/news/sunit...-momentum.html

Bottom line. Excessive cancer screenings are a bad thing about our healthcare system, not a good thing. They make the supposed "better" treatment for cancer in the US versus Europe data meaningless. It's a statistical artifact, not reality.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2014, 09:57 PM   #13
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
I'm not sure you're getting it.

We conduct unnecessary and ineffective screenings for cancer. They identify people as having cancer who either do not have cancer or have a slow growing cancer that will not kill them. The patients are then often subject to additional procedures, such as removing organs, that cause serious side effects. Like impotence.

All this is a triple whammy. Poor healthcare, increased costs, bad outcomes. But it does inflate our "five year survival rate" data nicely.

This is why tests including PSA blood tests and mammograms are not recommended as screening techniques for the general population any more, but are reserved for specific target populations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unnecessary/

http://www.georgetown.edu/news/sunit...-momentum.html

Bottom line. Excessive cancer screenings are a bad thing about our healthcare system, not a good thing. They make the supposed "better" treatment for cancer in the US versus Europe data meaningless. It's a statistical artifact, not reality.
I would much rather have an unnecessary screening (which is typically very inexpensive) that have a cancer that I don't know about, nor does my physician. Not sure about your apparent conclusion that we should reduce/ignore screenings, and therefore various cancers - who gets to pick and choose which screenings are ignored, and which are not? Which cancers get addressed, and which don't? The governments of those countries? Who gets to arbitrate any dispute?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-23-2014, 01:34 AM   #14
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 460
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I would much rather have an unnecessary screening (which is typically very inexpensive) that have a cancer that I don't know about, nor does my physician. Not sure about your apparent conclusion that we should reduce/ignore screenings, and therefore various cancers - who gets to pick and choose which screenings are ignored, and which are not? Which cancers get addressed, and which don't? The governments of those countries? Who gets to arbitrate any dispute?
The problem is not that the test is unnecessary, but that a false positive or an overly sensitive result (the labeling healthy people as cancer victims thing discussed above) will lead you to additional tests and procedures that may cause serious problems. Not to mention the mental aspect.

The people now recommending fewer tests are basically well established medical associations. For the new suggested limits on PSA testing, it's the American Urological Association, founded in 1902, with 20,000 members worldwide..

"Urologist H. Ballentine Carter, who chaired the panel that wrote the new guidelines, said: "There really was no high-level evidence supporting the use of screening with PSA."

He added that while the general public may be enthusiastic about PSA screening "the idea that screening delivers benefits may have been overexaggerated."

The AUA now believes that even though PSA screening may help prevent some prostate cancer deaths, it can also be the cause of painful biopsies in "healthy" mean, plus some other unnecessary treatments. Researchers from John Hopkins University reported in The Journal of Urology (November 2011 issue) that prostate biopsies are associated with a 6.9% hospitalization rate within 30 days of the procedure because of complications.

The AUA says that men should be particularly cautious before making the decision to go through with the screening and weigh the benefits against the potential harms."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
VERY IMPORTANT - This discussion is a political one, giving an example that testing is not a universal good thing, and may have drawbacks. The discussion is not a full one, just a short post about certain aspects. The author is not a medical professional. Consult your physician before deciding not to have this test. It is still useful for many men. The AUA simply recommended that it not be used for screening as many men as previously recommended.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________

One of those potential harms is impotence after some procedures.

As far as who gets to make the decisions, it's still you and your doctor. No one is suggesting that that change. However, your private insurance company may no longer pay for it. The government is LESS likely to "get between you and your doctor", by requiring minimum levels of coverage for all insurance. Many private policies now don't cover a lot. It's one of the reasons why our life expectancy is less than in most countries with national health insurance.

Private insurance represents the true "death panel". The following sequence is not that rare. Get seriously sick, lose your job, lose your health insurance, lose medical care for your condition, die.

That sequence is, of course, unheard of in countries with national health insurance. Which is to say, virtually all other advanced democracies. Honestly, job linked insurance is barbaric in this day and age. Health insurance needs to be available to all people, independent of their employment. Surely you realize that many people are in a job they hate simply to get medical insurance for themselves and/or their family. This is good for them and for our country? Doesn't it make us less free?

We don't have to be stupid here. The rest of the world has amply demonstrated that, like inspecting food or regulating air safety, health insurance is one of the things best done by government.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-23-2014 at 02:07 AM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-23-2014, 05:42 PM   #15
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

I'm sorry - I couldn't disagree with you more - in government run programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, DoD, etc., the government is ABSOLUTELY between you and your doctor - it's completely naive to think they are not. Try to get Medicare to buy you an oxygen concentrator. And with Obamacare, the government set the standards of coverage - which is why many people ultimately saw a decline in their insurance. Medicare Advantage is being crushed by the govt.

And other countries' life expectancy is not greater than ours, esp after you adjust for the many differences in population in the US. Again, in other countries they don't measure statistics the way we do - most of Europe doesn't count a birth as "live" until the child is months old - whereas we count it the moment it takes a breath. They don't try to save premature infants like we do. There is just no way other countries have anywhere near the health quality we do.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-23-2014, 09:38 PM   #16
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 460
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
I'm sorry - I couldn't disagree with you more - in government run programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, DoD, etc., the government is ABSOLUTELY between you and your doctor - it's completely naive to think they are not. Try to get Medicare to buy you an oxygen concentrator. And with Obamacare, the government set the standards of coverage - which is why many people ultimately saw a decline in their insurance.
Who saw a "decline" in their insurance? The policies that the insurance companies chose not to renew were ones that did not cover nearly as many things as the ones available through the health care exchanges. They basically were a scam, the pretense of giving people healthcare insurance with policies that just didn't pay out in many circumstances.

"More Than Half Of (existing) Individual Health Plans Offer Coverage That Falls Short Of What Can (meaning "is allowed to") Be Sold Through Exchanges As Of 2014"

http://content.healthaffairs.org/con.../1339.abstract

Meaning private insurance companies come between you and your doctor more than the policies available through the government. The Congressional hearings on Obamacare were filled with people's horror stories about denial of coverage. Sometimes insurance companies have cancelled policies when people get sick. "Recission" is the fancy word.

"Anthem Blue Cross sued over rescissions

City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo says the health insurer made false promises of coverage and hid a scheme to drop sick policyholders."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...#ixzz2uCeioShb

You can argue that people should have the right to buy cheap and bad policies, although I disagree; it's like saying people should have the right to fly cheaply on airplanes with inadequate maintenance and untrained pilots. You can't argue that Obamacare reduced coverage, it increased it substantially. In terms of giving people insurance who had none, in terms of banning private insurance dodges like refusing people with preexisting conditions, and in terms of overall coverage of procedures. America is better off for it.

People can talk all they want about political/philosophical differences with Obamacare. But they can't say why employment based private insurance is better. The coverage, the numbers, and the experience of pretty much the whole rest of the advanced world say it's not.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-24-2014 at 01:00 AM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2014, 11:08 AM   #17
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Insurance companies can no longer sell plans that do not meet the minimum levels of coverage defined by Obamacare - it's not an option/choice. If I don't want to purchase a plan that includes coverage for maternity, substance abuse, and gender re-assignment, I no longer have a choice. And the Obamacare plans often have deductibles of $5k-$12k+, if you buy a plan that costs in the neighborhood of your old plan.

Again, people in the advanced world usually by extra insurance so they don't have to deal with the Socialized medicine system in their country. And again, the US leads the world in drug and medical invention - what's that worth?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2014, 12:12 PM   #18
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 460
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Insurance companies can no longer sell plans that do not meet the minimum levels of coverage defined by Obamacare - it's not an option/choice. If I don't want to purchase a plan that includes coverage for maternity, substance abuse, and gender re-assignment, I no longer have a choice. And the Obamacare plans often have deductibles of $5k-$12k+, if you buy a plan that costs in the neighborhood of your old plan.

Again, people in the advanced world usually by extra insurance so they don't have to deal with the Socialized medicine system in their country. And again, the US leads the world in drug and medical invention - what's that worth?
Maternity and substance abuse care are indeed included in all policies. Gender reassignment is not. I can see how you might disagree with that, although I don't. But it's an example of how Obamacare provides more coverage rather than less, as discussed above.

Costs of the policies do vary with income level. I can see how you might disagree with that. But, for comparable coverage, many people find that they're saving money, some pay a bit more.

You're correct that the very best systems in the world provide a government insurance program that provides basic needs (including, pretty much everywhere, maternity and substance abuse) and provide for the possibility of purchasing extra private insurance that goes beyond basic care. We had the opportunity to copy the best, but political opposition forced us into the compromise known as Obamacare, to get various groups on board. I'm not any happier about that than you are. It beats what we were dealing with hollow, but is far from as good as it could have been.

It is good that US drug companies are in the forefront of innovation. It's a residual effect of the fact that we used to care about science, and the government supported scientific innovation. I worked with a guy that developed, under government funding, a computer system that was routinely used by private companies in drug design.

The drug companies finance their innovation, as well as make some of the highest profits of any sector, by charging US consumers outrageous prices, then selling the same drugs at lower prices in other countries. So the drug companies are forcing you to subsidize drug prices in other countries. Like that much?

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-24-2014 at 12:22 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2014, 12:43 PM   #19
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,163
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Who saw a "decline" in their insurance? The policies that the insurance companies chose not to renew were ones that did not cover nearly as many things as the ones available through the health care exchanges. They basically were a scam, the pretense of giving people healthcare insurance with policies that just didn't pay out in many circumstances.

"More Than Half Of (existing) Individual Health Plans Offer Coverage That Falls Short Of What Can (meaning "is allowed to") Be Sold Through Exchanges As Of 2014"

http://content.healthaffairs.org/con.../1339.abstract

Meaning private insurance companies come between you and your doctor more than the policies available through the government. The Congressional hearings on Obamacare were filled with people's horror stories about denial of coverage. Sometimes insurance companies have cancelled policies when people get sick. "Recission" is the fancy word.

"Anthem Blue Cross sued over rescissions

City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo says the health insurer made false promises of coverage and hid a scheme to drop sick policyholders."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...#ixzz2uCeioShb

You can argue that people should have the right to buy cheap and bad policies, although I disagree; it's like saying people should have the right to fly cheaply on airplanes with inadequate maintenance and untrained pilots. You can't argue that Obamacare reduced coverage, it increased it substantially. In terms of giving people insurance who had none, in terms of banning private insurance dodges like refusing people with preexisting conditions, and in terms of overall coverage of procedures. America is better off for it.

People can talk all they want about political/philosophical differences with Obamacare. But they can't say why employment based private insurance is better. The coverage, the numbers, and the experience of pretty much the whole rest of the advanced world say it's not.
Like most americans, i can only tell you how it affected me. Well, me and my employees that is.

We've maintained a very rich health insurance policy over the years which had excellent coverage and very low max out of pocket limits. This policy as you can guess was fairly expensive. But the vast majority of things were covered by a co-pay. The monthly premium for my wife and myself, both non alcohol or tobacco users, was $635 each month. Now that policy costs $989 each month. My single employees were paying $352 each month would have had to pay $563 a month for the same coverage. And my ins broker tells me to expect it to have a similar or higher increase next year.

So what we had to do was decrease our amount of coverage in order to keep our premiums at the same price. Our max out of pocket limit has tripled and most everything we had that was covered by a co-pay now goes against our deductibles which has also tripled.

In short, our coverage has decreased and our premiums have increased. I call that a decline in our insurance. At least in how it's affected us personally.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2014, 04:54 PM   #20
Templar
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Templar's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...

Posts: 1,816
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2011 BMW M3  [5.00]
Welcome back, Scotch.
__________________
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'13 Toyota Tundra - 4x4 Platinum CrewMax, 5.7l iForce V8
Templar is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2014, 10:01 PM   #21
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 521
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Maternity and substance abuse care are indeed included in all policies. Gender reassignment is not. I can see how you might disagree with that, although I don't. But it's an example of how Obamacare provides more coverage rather than less, as discussed above.

Costs of the policies do vary with income level. I can see how you might disagree with that. But, for comparable coverage, many people find that they're saving money, some pay a bit more.

You're correct that the very best systems in the world provide a government insurance program that provides basic needs (including, pretty much everywhere, maternity and substance abuse) and provide for the possibility of purchasing extra private insurance that goes beyond basic care. We had the opportunity to copy the best, but political opposition forced us into the compromise known as Obamacare, to get various groups on board. I'm not any happier about that than you are. It beats what we were dealing with hollow, but is far from as good as it could have been.

It is good that US drug companies are in the forefront of innovation. It'hs a residual effect of the fact that we used to care about science, and the government supported scientific innovation. I worked with a guy that developed, under government funding, a computer system that was routinely used by private companies in drug design.

The drug companies finance their innovation, as well as make some of the highest profits of any sector, by charging US consumers outrageous prices, then selling the same drugs at lower prices in other countries. So the drug companies are forcing you to subsidize drug prices in other countries. Like that much?
Coverage I'm forced to pay for that I don't need is not better coverage - it's a loss of personal choice to government regulation. Same goes for abortion coverage mandates - and that includes a loss of religious freedom and moral choice.

Costs of the policies don't vary with income levels - what varies is the level of government subsidies. A family can have income of over $92k/yr, and still get the taxpayer to pick up a substantial portion of their coverage, which we are paying with borrowed money. How did we lose sight of that?

I again disagree with your assumption that "the very best health systems in the world" are socialized medicine systems - they generally suck. We have had Medicaid here for decades as a "basic" health system, that is offered free of cost to poor people - it's why we don't step over the dead/dying in the streets.

Not sure about your conclusion of the "residual effect" - we still continue to lead drug and medical device innovation. Where the government reduced payment for various meds/devices, the innovation has ceased. Example is antibiotics - we haven't had any new antibiotics in development for many years, which is why we are now seeing drug-resistant pneumonia, TB, gonorrhea, MRSA, C-Diff, and many others - because the "evil" profit motive was removed.

The drug companies do make huge profits. I'm fine with that, if they innovate for the good of all of us. The Trial Attorneys also make huge profits, by suing the drug companies in ridiculous class-action suits (watch daytime TV ads from trial attorneys). The Trial Attorneys are the #1 contributors to Obama and the Democrats - which is why Tort Reform wasn't addressed in Obamacare. So you now pay their fees in your healthcare costs. Like that much?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2014, 11:01 PM   #22
pt
Private
 
Drives: I miss my E12
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NY

Posts: 79
iTrader: (0)

In line somewhat with Tonka, I'm able to give my employees a health plan under ACA for $300 a month. But it's a shit policy with a $6K deductible. The premium is probably $250 a month too high. My competitors don't give their guys any health insurance at all though, so I'm sort of winning at a game where everyone is hitting their chins on the bar. Yay.

I'm no expert on healthcare insurance. But common themes keep recurring - lack of any a-la-cart options and an out-of-control legal system keep piling cost on to everyone's policies. The a-la-cart deficiency is especially flabbergasting - so if someone working at a Catholic diocese for example needs an abortion and the employer doesn't cover it, we end up with a useless debate and a patient that gets screwed. Again, yay.

Why not just allow for employers to provide an effective base policy, and if employees need additional coverage, they can add it and share in the cost? Am I looking at that too simply?
pt is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST