You can't make this up!

[Gaolee]

Big Johnny McSame sez:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

[Wakey]

Thanks for the daily kos.

Nice quote though, got a date for it?

[BigBadBoom]

Originally Posted by Wakey

Thanks for the daily kos.

Nice quote though, got a date for it?

It's from the current Sept/Oct edition (PDF) of Contingencies, the magazine of the American Academy of Actuaries

So, like yesterday in political terms. What else ya got?

[Wakey]

simple question

[RiverCityRebel]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Oooh! Like "Organ Default Swaps" and "Collateralized Drug Obligations!" I love this sort of innovation! It worked so well in banking, after all.

I can't wait to have my HMO rated AAA by Moody's. I'm sure they can be trusted.

[county]

Ya know, I can't figure out why anyone would even consider voting Republican for this election what with McCain being wrong on the major issues and his running mate being fcuking crazy.

[stefrrr]

That's nuts. Even if it was written a couple of months ago, as I suspect it was, that's an idiotic thing to say.

I don't like the rest of what he's saying there either. Let's deregulate insurance and pharmaceuticals even more! Yay! How much worse can it get?

I wunner who's paying for his campaign. Hmmmm...

[Gaolee]

It was published in an actuarial trade journal this month. Oops. I don't know who would ever read an actuarial trade journal, but the absurdity and timing of his article are stunning enough it got picked up by other outlets, otherwise I never would have known about it.

I am sure the Daily Kos is enjoying it, but they didn't make it up, either.

[PhilB]

The biggest problem with our healthcare system is that there are no incentives for either doctors or insurance companies to make the patients happy. The doctors primarily work for (i.e. get paid by) the insurance companies. The insurance companies primarily work for (i.e. get paid by) the H.R. departments of employers. Getting rid of the perverse tax incentives that have made this happen would help get us to where the insurance companies would have to compete for customers and would then have some incentive to make them reasonably happy with their coverage.

Neither party has said word one about addressing this.

The second biggest problem with our healthcare system is that our healthcare system is carrying the cost of the majority of the world's medical development, due to the socialized systems in most other wealthy countries.

Neither party has said word one about addressing this either.

One party wants to keep the current fuckup; the other wants to replace it with an even bigger fuckup. Yay.

Once again, well past time for alternative parties and some reality-based approaches to our problems.

PhilB

[county]

Originally Posted by PhilB

The biggest problem with our healthcare system is that there are no incentives for either doctors or insurance companies to make the patients happy. The doctors primarily work for (i.e. get paid by) the insurance companies. The insurance companies primarily work for (i.e. get paid by) the H.R. departments of employers. Getting rid of the perverse tax incentives that have made this happen would help get us to where the insurance companies would have to compete for customers and would then have some incentive to make them reasonably happy with their coverage.

Neither party has said word one about addressing this.

The second biggest problem with our healthcare system is that our healthcare system is carrying the cost of the majority of the world's medical development, due to the socialized systems in most other wealthy countries.

Neither party has said word one about addressing this either.

One party wants to keep the current fuckup; the other wants to replace it with an even bigger fuckup. Yay.

Once again, well past time for alternative parties and some reality-based approaches to our problems.

PhilB

You got a source to support that statement?

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by Wakey

simple question

Now that you have your answer, what did it tell you? And how would it have been more or less wrong if it was two, five or ten years old?

Please provide a simple answer...

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by county

You got a source to support that statement?

Not so much a source, unless you follow the big pharma's balance sheets. They make a buttload of money here in the US, introduce new stuff here, test it all out on us while making a whole lot of money, then go onto the next thing when the patents run out. They can't sell for as much elsewhere, since those markets won't pay or have other, generic competition with far fewer protections as in the US. It works both for us and against us. The pharmaceutical companies have every incentive to innovate, since they make more money, but they also have the incentive to push stuff nobody needs and suff that doesn't work quite right. They also have the incentive to overcharge in a big way.

Phil's right- the economic incentives in our healthcare system are screwed up beyond band aids. In order to straighten it out, we have to go to a single payer system like just about everyone else on the planet, or go to a pure market system where the patients pay for their treatment. Either way gets it back under control in time, but both are extremely problematic for different reasons. The American people have got used to having healthcare available to them, so I doubt a pure market solution will go over too well, leaving us with a single payer system of some kind. It's what we already have, in effect, except the insurance companies are a private, profit driven version of the single payer.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by county

You got a source to support that statement?

I'm extremely familiar with this, as I work in the medical development industry as a consulting engineer.

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Not so much a source, unless you follow the big pharma's balance sheets. They make a buttload of money here in the US, introduce new stuff here, test it all out on us while making a whole lot of money, then go onto the next thing when the patents run out. They can't sell for as much elsewhere, since those markets won't pay or have other, generic competition with far fewer protections as in the US. It works both for us and against us. The pharmaceutical companies have every incentive to innovate, since they make more money, but they also have the incentive to push stuff nobody needs and suff that doesn't work quite right. They also have the incentive to overcharge in a big way.

Phil's right- the economic incentives in our healthcare system are screwed up beyond band aids. In order to straighten it out, we have to go to a single payer system like just about everyone else on the planet, or go to a pure market system where the patients pay for their treatment. Either way gets it back under control in time, but both are extremely problematic for different reasons. The American people have got used to having healthcare available to them, so I doubt a pure market solution will go over too well, leaving us with a single payer system of some kind. It's what we already have, in effect, except the insurance companies are a private, profit driven version of the single payer.

A government run single payer system is the only thing we could possibly do that is worse than what we're doing now. Ask anyone who depends on the VA whether they think we all should be so lucky. Not to mention all those who suffer from diseases and conditions we don't know how to cure yet, whose prospects of ever seeing one would greatly be diminished by the destruction of the only remaining market that makes development of many medicines economically feasible.
=====
A couple ancillary bits:

"Tax-supported government programs, like mandatory health insurance, invariably give us less than the free market would. For example, every country with mandatory health insurance has long lines for the expensive procedures, even if they are life-saving. In Britain, those over 55 years old are often denied kidney dialysis outright, so that the available spots can be given to younger people. Canadian heart patients flock to the U.S. for cardiac surgery, rather than die waiting in line. Patients who would get life-saving treatment in the U.S. are told to go home and prepare to die. You can find a great deal of documentation on this particular issue at NCPA | A Leader In Promoting Private Alternatives To Government Regulation & Control and www.heartland.org." -- Dr. Mary Ruwart
=====
Noting the downward spiral of socialized medicine:

Baroness Warnock: Dementia sufferers may have a 'duty to die' - Telegraph

How soon before British bureaucrats start deciding to "Soylent Green" people
deemed to be too much of a burden on the public health care system?
=====
PhilB

[baldheadeddork]

Originally Posted by PhilB

A government run single payer system is the only thing we could possibly do that is worse than what we're doing now. Ask anyone who depends on the VA whether they think we all should be so lucky.

The return of one-note Phil...

Someone did ask the vets, and they routinely give the VA higher marks than patients in the for-profit system.

Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.

For VA Secretary R. James Nicholson, the news is affirmation of what he called "the greatest story never told," that the VA offers top-quality care for its patients.

VA medical services received high marks during the annual American Customer Satisfaction Index, which has ranked customer satisfaction with various federal programs and private-sector industries and major companies since 1994.

Veterans who recently used VA services and were interviewed for the 2005 ACSI survey gave the VA's inpatient care a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale -- compared to a 73 rating for the private-sector health care industry. Veterans gave the VA a rating of 80 for outpatient care, five percentage points higher than the 75 rating for private-sector outpatient care and 9 percent higher than the average satisfaction rating for all federal services.

"Although VA has received many wonderful endorsements recently, the support of our veterans -- the people who know us best -- is the highest praise," Nicholson said.

The latest survey marks the sixth consecutive year that VA's health care system has outranked the private sector for customer satisfaction, Nicholson noted today during a joint interview with the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service.

[ARozanski]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

The return of one-note Phil...

Someone did ask the vets, and they routinely give the VA higher marks than patients in the for-profit system.

Wouldn't you need to interview patients that have been through both private care and VA care to get a true comparison?

If private care patients have higher expectations (and some have very high expectations), they may be more inclined to complain about the system, whereas veterans may not have such high expectations.

I really don't know, just curious.