Topic: Private enterprise bankrupting America? - page 5. (Read 10903 times)
I just read it. The answer is not there.
No, I don't want to discuss the article. I want to discuss the data the discussion found in the article is based on.
This is not answered in the WaPo article. Unless I am missing something that article seems pretty dumb.
"Medical care costs so much in the US because prices are so high."
Quote
So then the question is why are the insurers losing out so much.
This is not answered in the WaPo article. Unless I am missing something that article seems pretty dumb.
"Medical care costs so much in the US because prices are so high."
Read the article. Its answered in there.
No, I don't want to discuss the article. I want to discuss the data the discussion found in the article is based on.
This is not answered in the WaPo article. Unless I am missing something that article seems pretty dumb.
"Medical care costs so much in the US because prices are so high."
Quote
So then the question is why are the insurers losing out so much.
This is not answered in the WaPo article. Unless I am missing something that article seems pretty dumb.
"Medical care costs so much in the US because prices are so high."
So it once again comes down to someone who wants data vs someone who wants a narrative that makes sense to them. If you are uninterested in the data just say so from the beginning from now on.
By "want data" you mean that you want to discuss the article without reading it. That hardly seems useful.
Hawker, you must understand that bitcoinbitcoin113's research strategy is to scan and search for phrases in documents, so he can parse some special meaning from some particular phrase. I've noted this over and over in the discussion related to climate change. A solid and deep understanding of any topic is often counter to his goals.
Maybe. Its a bit of a cheek to ask me to copy paste bits of an article that he is too lazy read.
So it once again comes down to someone who wants data vs someone who wants a narrative that makes sense to them. If you are uninterested in the data just say so from the beginning from now on.
By "want data" you mean that you want to discuss the article without reading it. That hardly seems useful.
Hawker, you must understand that bitcoinbitcoin113's research strategy is to scan and search for phrases in documents, so he can parse some special meaning from some particular phrase. I've noted this over and over in the discussion related to climate change. A solid and deep understanding of any topic is often counter to his goals.
So it once again comes down to someone who wants data vs someone who wants a narrative that makes sense to them. If you are uninterested in the data just say so from the beginning from now on.
By "want data" you mean that you want to discuss the article without reading it. That hardly seems useful.
You have to know that most of these medical services are the cutting edge of technology and that technology is financed and researched in America. It is like getting the PS7 while the rest of the world plays on the PS3.
How much would you pay to live forever?
How much would you pay to live forever?
I twould help you to read the article. The US overpays but it gets the same stuff.
You have to know that most of these medical services are the cutting edge of technology and that technology is financed and researched in America. It is like getting the PS7 while the rest of the world plays on the PS3.
How much would you pay to live forever?
How much would you pay to live forever?
So it once again comes down to someone who wants data vs someone who wants a narrative that makes sense to them. If you are uninterested in the data just say so from the beginning from now on.
So then the question is why are the insurers losing out so much.
Please read the article. It takes you less time to read it than it takes me to copy paste the answers.
So then the question is why are the insurers losing out so much.
...snip...
You mentioned vendors earlier but then we got distracted. Where in the supply chain?
You mentioned vendors earlier but then we got distracted. Where in the supply chain?
From the article:
Quote
The result is that, unlike in other countries, sellers of health-care services in America have considerable power to set prices, and so they set them quite high. Two of the five most profitable industries in the United States — the pharmaceuticals industry and the medical device industry — sell health care. With margins of almost 20 percent, they beat out even the financial sector for sheer profitability.
The players sitting across the table from them — the health insurers — are not so profitable. In 2009, their profit margins were a mere 2.2 percent. That’s a signal that the sellers have the upper hand over the buyers.
The players sitting across the table from them — the health insurers — are not so profitable. In 2009, their profit margins were a mere 2.2 percent. That’s a signal that the sellers have the upper hand over the buyers.
It looks like malpractice insurance only directly accounts for a small percentage of the total cost. The idea in limiting malpractice claims is more to reduce ordering extraneous tests.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
It won't make any difference. The cost comes from further up the supply chain. Tinkering around with MDs incentives is an interesting pastime for legislators but it doesn't affect the cost issue to any meaningful extent.
You mentioned vendors earlier but then we got distracted. Where in the supply chain?
It looks like malpractice insurance only directly accounts for a small percentage of the total cost. The idea in limiting malpractice claims is more to reduce ordering extraneous tests.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
It won't make any difference. The cost comes from further up the supply chain. Tinkering around with MDs incentives is an interesting pastime for legislators but it doesn't affect the cost issue to any meaningful extent.
It looks like malpractice insurance only directly accounts for a small percentage of the total cost. The idea in limiting malpractice claims is more to reduce ordering extraneous tests.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
Well, when it's not coming out of the doctor's pocket, why NOT order all the tests that they need?I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
Why doesn't a mechanic check every single thing in your car when you get an oil change? Because people don't want to pay what that would cost. It is alot easier to replace a car than your health though.
It looks like malpractice insurance only directly accounts for a small percentage of the total cost. The idea in limiting malpractice claims is more to reduce ordering extraneous tests.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
Well, when it's not coming out of the doctor's pocket, why NOT order all the tests that they need? I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
It looks like malpractice insurance only directly accounts for a small percentage of the total cost. The idea in limiting malpractice claims is more to reduce ordering extraneous tests.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
I think what is going on here is a culture of defensive medicine. Defensive medical practice is "sticky". Once a doctor is trained, and used to running many tests, they are unlikely to change this practice just because of limited liability. We may have to wait for the next generation of doctors before we could expect to see an effect.
It looks like the relative cost of hospital visits is dropping, but imaging and testing is rising. Very interesting.
Three reasons US healthcare is expensive:
1. People are allowed to sue doctors, hospitals, and drug companies for hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, come on, does hundreds of millions really compensate a person better than a few million would? Either way, they're set for life.
2. Because the US takes a free and capitalist approach to the medical world, companies pour tens of billions of dollars into R&D for innovative new treatments and techniques. So, the US has the latest and greatest treatments, but it costs a lot to recover those R&D expenditures.
3. Because people are allowed to be treated without paying for it. Illegals included. Hospitals have to recover costs from people who don't pay somehow...
1. People are allowed to sue doctors, hospitals, and drug companies for hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, come on, does hundreds of millions really compensate a person better than a few million would? Either way, they're set for life.
2. Because the US takes a free and capitalist approach to the medical world, companies pour tens of billions of dollars into R&D for innovative new treatments and techniques. So, the US has the latest and greatest treatments, but it costs a lot to recover those R&D expenditures.
3. Because people are allowed to be treated without paying for it. Illegals included. Hospitals have to recover costs from people who don't pay somehow...
1. The fact that Texas clamped down on malpractice lawsuits several years ago and hasn't seen any drop in medical procedure costs (malpractice suits by number have fallen to a mere fraction of what they were and malpractice insurance premiums did drop like a stone), which continue to grow at well above the national average, suggests this is not a significant factor.
Do you have a source for this?
sure.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1635882
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gov-rick-perrys-texas-medical-malpractice-law-what-it-does-doesnt-and-might-do/2011/08/02/gIQAlafZJJ_blog.html
This is pretty much what I found. The thing I was wondering is why they only include medicaire costs and not claim rates for procedures covered by commercial insurance or payed out of pocket.
Three reasons US healthcare is expensive:
1. People are allowed to sue doctors, hospitals, and drug companies for hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, come on, does hundreds of millions really compensate a person better than a few million would? Either way, they're set for life.
2. Because the US takes a free and capitalist approach to the medical world, companies pour tens of billions of dollars into R&D for innovative new treatments and techniques. So, the US has the latest and greatest treatments, but it costs a lot to recover those R&D expenditures.
3. Because people are allowed to be treated without paying for it. Illegals included. Hospitals have to recover costs from people who don't pay somehow...
1. People are allowed to sue doctors, hospitals, and drug companies for hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, come on, does hundreds of millions really compensate a person better than a few million would? Either way, they're set for life.
2. Because the US takes a free and capitalist approach to the medical world, companies pour tens of billions of dollars into R&D for innovative new treatments and techniques. So, the US has the latest and greatest treatments, but it costs a lot to recover those R&D expenditures.
3. Because people are allowed to be treated without paying for it. Illegals included. Hospitals have to recover costs from people who don't pay somehow...
1. The fact that Texas clamped down on malpractice lawsuits several years ago and hasn't seen any drop in medical procedure costs (malpractice suits by number have fallen to a mere fraction of what they were and malpractice insurance premiums did drop like a stone), which continue to grow at well above the national average, suggests this is not a significant factor.
Do you have a source for this?
sure.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Texas_Liability_Limits.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1635882
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/gov-rick-perrys-texas-medical-malpractice-law-what-it-does-doesnt-and-might-do/2011/08/02/gIQAlafZJJ_blog.html
Jump to: