Obamacare gives government all your health records

[Acid Trip]

Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records
By: Rep. Tim Huelskamp | 09/23/11 3:29 PM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/obamare-hhs-rule-would-give-government-everybody-s-health-records

It’s been said a thousand times: Congress had to pass President Obama’s health care law in order to find out what’s in it. But, despite the repetitiveness, the level of shock from each new discovery never seems to recede.

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

(See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf)

The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.

It’s par for the course with the federal government, but abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which “option” is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American - including you.

There are major problems with any one of these three “options.” First is the obvious breach of patient confidentiality. The federal government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to managing private information about its citizens.

Why should we trust that the federal government would somehow keep all patient records confidential? In one case, a government employee’s laptop containing information about 26.5 million veterans and their spouses was stolen from the employee’s home.

There's also the HHS contractor who lost a laptop containing medical information about nearly 50,000 Medicare beneficiaries. And, we cannot forget when the USDA's computer system was compromised and information and photos of 26,000 employees, contractors, and retirees potentially accessed.

The second concern is the government compulsion to seize details about private business practices. Certainly many health insurance companies defended and advocated for the president’s health care law, but they likely did not know this was part of the bargain.

They are being asked to provide proprietary information to governments for purposes that will undermine their competitiveness. Obama and Sebelius made such a big deal about Americans being able to keep the coverage they have under ObamaCare; with these provisions, such private insurance may cease to exist if insurers are required to divulge their business models.

Certainly businesses have lost confidential data like the federal government has, but the power of the market can punish the private sector. A victim can fire a health insurance company; he cannot fire a bureaucrat.

What happens to the federal government if it loses a laptop full of patient data or business information? What recourse do individual citizens have against an inept bureaucrat who leaves the computer unlocked? Imagine a Wikileaks-sized disclosure of every Americans’ health histories. The results could be devastating - embarrassing - even Orwellian.

With its extensive rule-making decrees, ObamaCare has been an exercise in creating authority out of thin air at the expense of individuals’ rights, freedoms, and liberties.

The ability of the federal government to spy on, review, and approve individuals’ private patient-doctor interactions is an excessive power-grab.

Like other discoveries that have occurred since the law’s passage, this one leaves us scratching our heads as to the necessity not just of this provision, but the entire law.

The HHS attempts to justify its proposal on the grounds that it has to be able to compare performance. No matter what the explanation is, however, this type of data collection is an egregious violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and business privacy. It is like J. Edgar Hoover in a lab coat.

And, no matter what assurances Obama, Sebelius and their unelected and unaccountable HHS bureaucrats make about protections and safeguards of data, too many people already know what can result when their confidential information gets into the wrong hands, either intentionally or unintentionally.

[Muddy]

This things gonna be tossed out in 2012, so I don't see what the big deal is.

[Acid Trip]

This things gonna be tossed out in 2012, so I don't see what the big deal is.

That really depends. Are you saying the Supreme Court will get it in 2012 or that a new Republican majority in the 2012 elections will gut it beyond recognition?

[Muddy]

Im thinking the Republicans will modify it, waiver it, or possibly vote it away (if that's possible).

[Hal-9000]

In Canada, the gov keeps track of our health records...that's how they find you in the system, with a health care number...brings up all of your history within a minute

[Muddy]

In Canada, the gov keeps track of our health records...that's how they find you in the system, with a health care number...brings up all of your history within a minute

That can be a double edged sword down here...

[Hal-9000]

I like it when the paramedic dudes are hovering over me trying to figure out if I have allergies to medication :lol:

try that one...NO, try that one...he's turning blue again, take that one out!

[FBD]

This things gonna be tossed out in 2012, so I don't see what the big deal is.

perhaps...but this is *that* fkn important that we cant just close the door, walk away, and assume it all goes to plan! people need to be on this shit until the day it officially goes to the dumpster like the pile of trash it is.

[Deepsepia]

That can be a double edged sword down here...

News to Americans: the insurance industry has long had all your insurance records, and they are permitted an anti-trust exemption so they can share them with each other.

This story is a case of the the usual right wing zealots objecting to a concocted scare story about something that isn't happening, while failing to mention that the private sector has abused forever. Instead its "oh, fear what the government might do with information it might have in the future, but . . . no need to delineate for readers just what information about you private insurers are holding and trading today, and just what the consequences are for you.

If you have private health insurance, you've signed a form which not only releases your health data to you insurer, it permits them to contact your physician, and to share it with other people in the industry. Moreover, until Obamacare, they could and did use this information to deny you coverage, either because you might have had a pre-existing condition, or even that "your should have suspected" that you might might have a pre-existing condition.

This article is a good example of just how off-base the anti-Obamacare hysteria is.

The threat to your privacy is where its always been: in the insurance industry. They're the ones who go to black market data merchants to try to dig up pre-existing conditions to disqualify you from coverage, not the government.

[deebakes]

*moves to Bahrain*

[FBD]

News to Americans: the insurance industry has long had all your insurance records, and they are permitted an anti-trust exemption so they can share them with each other.

This story is a case of the the usual right wing zealots objecting to a concocted scare story about something that isn't happening, while failing to mention that the private sector has abused forever. Instead its "oh, fear what the government might do with information it might have in the future, but . . . no need to delineate for readers just what information about you private insurers are holding and trading today, and just what the consequences are for you.

If you have private health insurance, you've signed a form which not only releases your health data to you insurer, it permits them to contact your physician, and to share it with other people in the industry. Moreover, until Obamacare, they could and did use this information to deny you coverage, either because you might have had a pre-existing condition, or even that "your should have suspected" that you might might have a pre-existing condition.

This article is a good example of just how off-base the anti-Obamacare hysteria is.

The threat to your privacy is where its always been: in the insurance industry. They're the ones who go to black market data merchants to try to dig up pre-existing conditions to disqualify you from coverage, not the government.

news flash, the insurance rules today let them do it. who wrote the insurance rules? thank you very much.

you still cant defend obamacare. its a bunch of goddam lies & obfuscations.

if anything, a private company at least has some sort of responsibility for your data, and you do have some recourse if there are issues. the government? good luck protesting their irresponsibility!!! :rolleyes:

[Softdreamer]

Maybe some exposure in patient history and treatment and survival rates might also expose the weak points in your care system.

Are you really that bothered about some clerk finding out you had chest infection??

Worst case scenario, you have aids.
Some office worker finding out is really your biggest concern?

[Acid Trip]

Maybe some exposure in patient history and treatment and survival rates might also expose the weak points in your care system.

Are you really that bothered about some clerk finding out you had chest infection??

Worst case scenario, you have aids.
Some office worker finding out is really your biggest concern?

It's called doctor patient confidentiality for a reason. A person CHOOSES to buy health insurance and let an insurance company in on that privilege (read what you sign people).

Obamacare forces everyone to buy health insurance and therefore forces your doctor patient confidentiality to be shared with the government. See the difference?

[Softdreamer]

Not really.

That is the sort of encroachment of personal freedom I would not be that bothered about. I would be more bothered about living or dying depending on if I could afford overpriced cancer medication.

Surely a centralised health databank would be more efficient, therefore cheaper and faster to run (big deal right now).

But by all means keep using an inefficient slow system that puts lives at risk.

[Acid Trip]

Not really.

That is the sort of encroachment of personal freedom I would not be that bothered about.

It may not bother you but it bothers millions of other people. The last poll I looked at said 56% of Americans were against Obamacare.

I guess they (the majority of this country) should just shut up and leave it alone because by god it doesn't bother Softdreamer! :roll:

Sources: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

56% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, 52% Say Law Is Bad for the Country

[Softdreamer]

easy tiger.. :hand:
I was not talking about the whole bill, just the data protection part which you started in this thread.

The bill from what I understand is majorly compromised and flawed. however, the idea behind it is a just and honorable one. and perhaps worth sacrificing a few things for.

[Softdreamer]

And anyway... regarding that survey
It is in no doubt that any drain on any country's finances is 'bad for the country' especially at a time of economic uncertainty.

Yet I cant help but feel that 100 years from now, people will consider the idea of 'healthcare for all' on a par with the abolition of slavery. One of Americas triumphs in the name of humanity.

[Acid Trip]

And anyway... regarding that survey
It is in no doubt that any drain on any country's finances is 'bad for the country' especially at a time of economic uncertainty.

Yet I cant help but feel that 100 years from now, people will consider the idea of 'healthcare for all' on a par with the abolition of slavery. One of Americas triumphs in the name of humanity.

There is already "healthcare for all". You can walk into almost any doctor's office or hospital and receive treatment. Do you have to pay for it? Yes, just like you pay for food, water, housing, etc. If the other essentials in life aren't free why should healthcare be free? Healthcare is there and available to anyone who pays for it just like everything else in life.

If you believe healthcare is a "right" then you believe that doctors are slaves who must treat you no matter what and not necessarily receive payment for it. Why should doctors be forced to provide free healthcare when farmers aren't forced to provide free food?

[Muddy]

News to Americans: the insurance industry has long had all your insurance records, and they are permitted an anti-trust exemption so they can share them with each other.

This story is a case of the the usual right wing zealots objecting to a concocted scare story about something that isn't happening, while failing to mention that the private sector has abused forever. Instead its "oh, fear what the government might do with information it might have in the future, but . . . no need to delineate for readers just what information about you private insurers are holding and trading today, and just what the consequences are for you.

If you have private health insurance, you've signed a form which not only releases your health data to you insurer, it permits them to contact your physician, and to share it with other people in the industry. Moreover, until Obamacare, they could and did use this information to deny you coverage, either because you might have had a pre-existing condition, or even that "your should have suspected" that you might might have a pre-existing condition.

This article is a good example of just how off-base the anti-Obamacare hysteria is.

The threat to your privacy is where its always been: in the insurance industry. They're the ones who go to black market data merchants to try to dig up pre-existing conditions to disqualify you from coverage, not the government.

This is a logical answer to me... It makes perfect sense..


news flash, the insurance rules today let them do it. who wrote the insurance rules? thank you very much.

you still cant defend obamacare. its a bunch of goddam lies & obfuscations.

if anything, a private company at least has some sort of responsibility for your data, and you do have some recourse if there are issues. the government? good luck protesting their irresponsibility!!! :rolleyes:

You are a paranoid MF, Homie.


It's called doctor patient confidentiality for a reason. A person CHOOSES to buy health insurance and let an insurance company in on that privilege (read what you sign people). ?

If you want the insurance they hand out at work, you have no friggin choice.. C'mon dude.. really?


It may not bother you but it bothers millions of other people. The last poll I looked at said 56% of Americans were against Obamacare.



Maybe a good portion of that 56% of Americans believes all the fear mongering spittle put out by the establishment? If you hammer someone long enough they stop using logic and just start believing what you present as the status quot...

[Acid Trip]

If you want the insurance they hand out at work, you have no friggin choice.. C'mon dude.. really?



Maybe a good portion of that 56% of Americans believes all the fear mongering spittle put out by the establishment? If you hammer someone long enough they stop using logic and just start believing what you present as the status quot...

You have a choice to not use your employers healthcare plan. Does it cost you more to seek outside coverage? Sure. Are you forced into the employer plan? Absolutely not. YOU HAVE A CHOICE. If you believe you are forced into employer coverage you've lost your mind.

So you believe 56% of American's are idiots who believe whatever they read or hear? I guess that's possible considering Obama got elected president.

I believe the healthcare bill is a massive government over reach and will be struck down by the SCOTUS (either the whole thing or the individual mandate). We'll know in a year who is right and who is wrong.

[Muddy]

You have a choice to not use your employers healthcare plan. Does it cost you more to seek outside coverage? Sure. Are you forced into the employer plan? Absolutely not. YOU HAVE A CHOICE. If you believe you are forced into employer coverage you've lost your mind.


In the real world I dont have a choice... I cant walk away from $10,000 worth of coverage that is part of my compensation package. So I have to take it and deal with it or make the "choice" of not having any coverage and forfeiting a huge percentage of my compensation. Wheres the "choice" in that?



So you believe 56% of American's are idiots who believe whatever they read or hear?

I never used the term "idiots" I said..

"Maybe a good portion of that 56% of Americans believes all the fear mongering spittle put out by the establishment"

And yes, I think the average person very much believes what they read or hear. People turn to the media for their information to make daily decisions. Without media how would you get your information? C-span for 12 hours a day?

[FBD]

paranoid? you dont have much of a clue of what makes me tick if you think shit like that, man :lol:

[Muddy]

paranoid? you dont have much of a clue of what makes me tick if you think shit like that, man :lol:

You are paranoid, you believe in the death panels and all the other crazy fear mongering shit cooked up out there..

[Acid Trip]

In the real world I dont have a choice... I cant walk away from $10,000 worth of coverage that is part of my compensation package. So I have to take it and deal with it or make the "choice" of not having any coverage and forfeiting a huge percentage of my compensation. Wheres the "choice" in that?

I never used the term "idiots" I said..

"Maybe a good portion of that 56% of Americans believes all the fear mongering spittle put out by the establishment"

And yes, I think the average person very much believes what they read or hear. People turn to the media for their information to make daily decisions. Without media how would you get your information? C-span for 12 hours a day?

One, you do have your choice in health insurers. Any assertion otherwise it silly. If health insurance is not through your job you can certainly get it elsewhere. How would you do it? Smaller house, cheaper car, buying less beer, etc. You have decided that with your lifestyle you cannot afford health insurance other than what your job offers. Again, you had a choice and you made it.

Without any media how would anyone get news? And you realize that C-SPAN is media right? Those two assertions contradict each other badly.

When you say "Maybe a good portion of that 56% of Americans believes all the fear mongering spittle put out by the establishment" you only reinforce my point of calling them idiots. If they believe what you call "fear mongering" they are idiots. All the facts are out there for people to see for themselves. Believing everything they see or hear makes them idiots.

And who is this "establishment"? According to polls most American's 1) Don't believe the media 2) Believe the media is too LIBERAL. That would make LIBERALS the "establishment". Are liberals badmouthing themselves and I missed it? Perhaps you were referring to the current administration as "the establishment". They are liberals too so I'm not sure what your point is.

Sources of "people believe the media" and "it's too liberal"

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/whkadyt7gkgpfoxx2iaepw.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/u2riqvdbh0iczgxq6ucmdw.gif

[Muddy]

One, you do have your choice in health insurers. Any assertion otherwise it silly. If health insurance is not through your job you can certainly get it elsewhere. How would you do it? Smaller house, cheaper car, buying less beer, etc. You have decided that with your lifestyle you cannot afford health insurance other than what your job offers. Again, you had a choice and you made it.



No fuck that... Im not moving into a smaller house, getting cheaper car, or buying less beer.. I'll just push for better regulations on the insurance industry that dont try and fuck the middle class like myself, and all the while flip my middle finger at guys like you that are in bed with them... So that being said.. :fu:

[Deepsepia]

It's called doctor patient confidentiality for a reason. A person CHOOSES to buy health insurance and let an insurance company in on that privilege (read what you sign people).

Can you find a health insurance policy which does not require you to waive all your privacy rights?

Nope, you can't.

They don't exist.

The Government is far more constrained in what it can do with your data than the private sector, and its incentives are different. The private insurers use your data to deny you coverage. The Government has no such incentive, and so they don't do any of the "dirty tricks" that anyone who's dealt with private insurers are familiar with.

Check in with seniors and ask how many of the want to swap their Government health insurance for a private plan . . .

[Softdreamer]

There is already "healthcare for all". You can walk into almost any doctor's office or hospital and receive treatment. Do you have to pay for it? Yes, just like you pay for food, water, housing, etc. If the other essentials in life aren't free why should healthcare be free? Healthcare is there and available to anyone who pays for it just like everything else in life.

If you believe healthcare is a "right" then you believe that doctors are slaves who must treat you no matter what and not necessarily receive payment for it. Why should doctors be forced to provide free healthcare when farmers aren't forced to provide free food?

Are you suggesting Farmers should give away free food???

Damn communist :lol:

Seriously, if health care was as cheap as bread and milk then i would agree with you.
But a working class man spends his whole life saving, gets cancer at 50 and uses every single penny on cancer treatments that only delay his death by a few months. Leaving his wife with a big debt and a dead husband.
Nice.

[FBD]

The Government is far more constrained in what it can do with your data than the private sector, and its incentives are different. The private insurers use your data to deny you coverage. The Government has no such incentive, and so they don't do any of the "dirty tricks" that anyone who's dealt with private insurers are familiar with.

Check in with seniors and ask how many of the want to swap their Government health insurance for a private plan . . .

Far more constrained? Care to back that one up?

seniors :roll: yes, let's go ask a group of people who already have ridiculously subsidized care, and ask them if they'd like to forgo that subsidy. a toddler could put that equation together and solve it.

I love how trusting in the government you are, but damn those corporations are evil and they'd leave you for dead on the side of the road in a second :lol:


MG...death panels...yah, so when a terrible system make everyone super reliant on the service, the service becomes so bloated that the gub has to scale it back, and who's going to be the first people denied service when they can no longer afford the steep spending trajectory they've prescribed for the populace?

2+2=___

[Muddy]

MG...death panels...yah, so when a terrible system make everyone super reliant on the service, the service becomes so bloated that the gub has to scale it back, and who's going to be the first people denied service when they can no longer afford the steep spending trajectory they've prescribed for the populace?

2+2=___

Fear and paranoia, Homie.. Honestly, I don't trust a lot of private corps. in this country.. First and foremost for them? The bottom line... At all cost.

[FBD]

Paranoia is an unsubstantiated fear. When you take a look at Obamacare, you see it was damn near designed to fail, or at least cause the failure of private insurance...9% premium rise this past year on avg...making the empty promise of saving money, yet its being shown time and again to be a fiscal nuke...

That "fear" is not unsubstantiated in the least. That is what's called a realistic assessment of a piece of trash legislation that the populace was lied to in order to gain support for it and even at that it couldnt even pass the process in any traditional sense of the word.

[Acid Trip]

Can you find a health insurance policy which does not require you to waive all your privacy rights?

Nope, you can't.

They don't exist.

The Government is far more constrained in what it can do with your data than the private sector, and its incentives are different. The private insurers use your data to deny you coverage. The Government has no such incentive, and so they don't do any of the "dirty tricks" that anyone who's dealt with private insurers are familiar with.

Check in with seniors and ask how many of the want to swap their Government health insurance for a private plan . . .

Pay cash. Didn't know you could pay cash for things? It works everywhere, even hospitals.

[Muddy]

Paranoia is an unsubstantiated fear. When you take a look at Obamacare, you see it was damn near designed to fail, or at least cause the failure of private insurance...9% premium rise this past year on avg...making the empty promise of saving money, yet its being shown time and again to be a fiscal nuke...

That "fear" is not unsubstantiated in the least. That is what's called a realistic assessment of a piece of trash legislation that the populace was lied to in order to gain support for it and even at that it couldnt even pass the process in any traditional sense of the word.


I just don't get why trust these insurance companies... I agree the legislation is a huge clusterfuck.. But really.. I dunno.. You know how I feel at this point.. Im done. :)

[FBD]

I never said I trusted insurance companies :razz: in fact if you look at the solutions I support, they all curb the amount of influence insurance companies have.

[Acid Trip]

Are you suggesting Farmers should give away free food???

Damn communist :lol:

Seriously, if health care was as cheap as bread and milk then i would agree with you.
But a working class man spends his whole life saving, gets cancer at 50 and uses every single penny on cancer treatments that only delay his death by a few months. Leaving his wife with a big debt and a dead husband.
Nice.

I'm saying the "healthcare is a right" argument is hogwash. Nothing is free and therefore healthcare shouldn't be free (aka a right) either. That asserts that anything necessary for life should be free and that will never happen. Obviously you didn't read the whole post or the example would have made sense.

You don't have to spend yourself into oblivion to live an extra 3 months if you get cancer like your example. Like Obama said "take the pain pill". Do you think government run healthcare will pay $500,000 so you can live an extra 3 months? Hahahahahaha! That's funny. Right now you have the choice to take the pain pill, spend 500k, or do neither and die sooner.

My argument is about choice, nothing else. I'm not defending the current healthcare system, I'm just saying it provides choices that you would NOT have under a single payer government run healthcare model.

[Deepsepia]

Pay cash. Didn't know you could pay cash for things? It works everywhere, even hospitals.

Actually it doesn't.

Hospitals negotiate prices with insurers, and generally have no posted price lists for individuals, outside of certain routine elective procedures. Go ahead, try to find a price list for complex cancer surgery and treatments from any hospital.

Oh, and just what are you supposed to do when you, say, fall off a ladder and get transported to the ER with broken vertebrae? Is there a price list for the MRI and neurosurgery consult there for you to examine (that is, if you're conscious)? No, obviously not. Without insurance, you're stuck with "whatever they charge" -- and of course, you have no idea what that is.

Few hospitals will accept an uninsured patient for a complex procedure without all kinds of open ended financial guarantees . . . even if you have $10,000 -- or $50,000 -- as a deposit, they have no way of knowing and they offer no guarantee whatsoever to an individual as to what their costs will be.

Complicated medical treatments routinely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since very few folks have that kind of money, that makes "paying cash" impossible for any but the very wealthiest people -- and even for them, insurance obtains a much better price for the same services.

If you're worth millions, you might find it possible to purchase the medical services you need for cash. Since only one person in a 100 in the US has a net worth over $1 million, your suggestion is irrelevant for %99 of the US. I would suggest that a solution that only applies to %1 of the population -- when the problem of obtaining medical care applies to the entire population -- is irrelevant.

Here's a recent news story that illustrates what an individual who might want to "pay cash" is up against:



Medical bills need reconstructive surgery
Prices are almost always inflated before being routinely discounted.
Amid such financial flimflammery, it's virtually impossible for a patient to be a well-informed consumer of healthcare.


Susan Kovinsky underwent outpatient surgery recently at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The procedure, a hysterectomy, began at 10:40 a.m. By 3 p.m., she was on her way home.

The hospital bill: $65,514.97.

"When I saw that number, I was sure it couldn't be right," Kovinsky, 44, of North Hollywood told me. "How could just a few hours in the hospital cost that much?"

Yet this is a story of the healthcare system working as it's intended to. Cedars-Sinai did its job. Kovinsky's insurer, Blue Shield of California, did its job. Kovinsky has no complaints about either.

But if we ever intend to get our healthcare spending under control, clearly there's much to be done to reform a system in which a relatively common procedure and less than a day in the hospital costs more than a fully loaded 535i BMW sedan.

Kovinsky's case is illustrative of the problem. Medical bills are almost always inflated before being routinely discounted. This is done by hospitals and doctors to boost their reimbursement from insurers.

The upshot, though, is that amid such financial flimflammery, it's virtually impossible for a patient to be a well-informed consumer of healthcare.

Kovinsky had what's known as a laparoscopic hysterectomy — a minimally invasive operation that allows a doctor to remove a woman's uterus by making three small incisions in the abdomen. The surgery is performed using instruments and a camera that are inserted under the patient's skin.

To be sure, this isn't a simple matter. It requires a certain level of expertise on the doctor's part. Even so, here are some of the charges from Kovinsky's hospital bill:

Operating room services: $35,629.65.

Medical/surgical supplies: $13,249.19.

Anesthesia: $10,217.68.

Recovery room: $3,455.13 (which, for just several hours of use, has to be one heck of a nice room; a full night's stay at the five-star Peninsula Beverly Hills costs a mere $495).

But the most striking aspect of Kovinsky's bill is that Cedars-Sinai deducted $34,526.39 as a "hospital discount to patient." The total cost billed to Blue Shield was thus $30,988.58.

The bill explains that the hospital "discounts for services covered by most insurance plans."

But you have to wonder: If Cedars can still make a profit billing about $31,000 for a laparoscopic hysterectomy, what's that $65,000 initial charge about? Why is the hospital inflating its bills by more than 50%? What's the actual cost of the procedure?

I spoke with several gynecologists to find out. Not one said they knew the true cost of performing a laparoscopic hysterectomy. Each hospital sets its own price, they said.

Patricia Kittell, Cedars-Sinai's vice president of patient financial services, was almost apologetic when I called to ask about the hospital's pricing. She readily acknowledged that no patient — whether insured or uninsured — actually pays the full price.

The problem is that government insurance programs like Medicare were able decades ago to negotiate deep discounts for program participants. Private insurers demanded the same treatment, and pretty soon it became standard practice for all reimbursements to hospitals to be heavily discounted.

"This is how all hospitals in the country are operating," Kittell said. "All charges are inflated."

Complicating matters even more, hospitals have different arrangements with different insurers, meaning that the discounted price charged to one patient could be significantly different from the price charged to another.

{snip}

The current system is little more than a guessing game in which prices don't reflect reality and in which the consumer is deliberately left in the dark.

Kovinsky's experience shows that the healthcare system works. But not like we want.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/24/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110325


The experience that the LA Times is describing is the norm, and without insurance,even a well off patient would be risking financial ruin-- you simply have no way to know what prices will be.

As you'll note in the article, the gynecologists that the reporter contacted didn't know what the price for a hysterectomy would be. If they don't know, how would a patient know?

If you want to look further into the subject, I'd recommend starting with:
"How Do Hospitals Get Paid? A Primer"
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/how-do-hospitals-get-paid-a-primer/

[Acid Trip]

Actually it doesn't.

Actually it does. I've done it several times. If you don't want to pay cash then buy health insurance. What part of choice are you so against? It is possible to NEVER visit a hospital and NEVER pay for health insurance and live a full and healthy life. Humans did it for thousands of years.

If a person wants to forgo health insurance that is their choice. I don't think it's a smart choice, but it's their choice not mine nor the governments.

And why is every example a major surgery? Like I said before, I have personally paid cash for several medical visits. I paid $100 for two IVs and anti-nausea mediation when I went to a clinic with the flu. I hurt my wrist and went to the clinic for an x-ray to make sure nothing was broken. My bill was $150 for the x-ray and examination.

If you want my personal opinion we need catastrophic medical insurance for the big stuff and everything else should be negotiated between the patient and the care giver. If you have cancer or need major surgery you use the catastrophic medical insurance. If you need a sports physical, an IV, or penicillin for strep throat why not pay the doctor directly and cut out the middle man?

[Muddy]

Actually it does. I've done it several times. If you don't want to pay cash then buy health insurance. What part of choice are you so against? It is possible to NEVER visit a hospital and NEVER pay for health insurance and live a full and healthy life. Humans did it for thousands of years.



:lol: There's a huge difference in a doc in the box $75 penicillin shot and going to a hospital and forking over 150k for a heart attack.. Get real man... These arent extreme circumstances.. I bet any one of us can name 5 people that have had heart attacks. I've been quietly reading your last posts and honestly.. I dont think you live in the real world.. Tell me the truth... Do you live at home under your moms insurance, and you just dont get it?

[Softdreamer]

When will you attackers of a public healthcare system realise that it shouldnt cost $400 for painkillers and $50,000 for an operation?!?!?
The current system is 99% profit and 1% actual patient care. There should NOT be a profit in human suffering, on any level. Given that those living below the poverty level in America is at its highest level in history I would have thought that more of you would have more sympathy for the sick and suffering, but who cares right? as long as your healthy and can afford your monthly premiums right??
Surely you must feel a smidging of guilt that this system will carry on regardless?

And Acid Trip, if its so cheap for a hospital visit? why are insurers allowed to bill ridiculous amounts to the patient for similar treatments?? isnt that holding a scalpel up to someones throat and telling them to hand over money??

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Actually it does. I've done it several times. If you don't want to pay cash then buy health insurance. What part of choice are you so against? It is possible to NEVER visit a hospital and NEVER pay for health insurance and live a full and healthy life. Humans did it for thousands of years.

If a person wants to forgo health insurance that is their choice. I don't think it's a smart choice, but it's their choice not mine nor the governments.

And why is every example a major surgery? Like I said before, I have personally paid cash for several medical visits. I paid $100 for two IVs and anti-nausea mediation when I went to a clinic with the flu. I hurt my wrist and went to the clinic for an x-ray to make sure nothing was broken. My bill was $150 for the x-ray and examination.

If you want my personal opinion we need catastrophic medical insurance for the big stuff and everything else should be negotiated between the patient and the care giver. If you have cancer or need major surgery you use the catastrophic medical insurance. If you need a sports physical, an IV, or penicillin for strep throat why not pay the doctor directly and cut out the middle man?


:lol: There's a huge difference in a doc in the box $75 penicillin shot and going to a hospital and forking over 150k for a heart attack.. Get real man... These arent extreme circumstances.. I bet any one of us can name 5 people that have had heart attacks. I've been quietly reading your last posts and honestly.. I dont think you live in the real world.. Tell me the truth... Do you live at home under your moms insurance, and you just dont get it?

I think you missed the point in what he wrote. I agree with what he posted. A regular trip to a doctor/clinic shouldn't be a mystery as to how much it will cost and something for your insurance to deal with. Dentists all do it (post prices), why can't doctors? A doctor/clinic that charged exorbitant fees would quickly be out of business. Let the market dictate the costs just like everything else in the world. Having it subsidized/run by the government will make it worse, not better. Name me just one thing the government does efficiently and cost effectively.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't/can't have insurance, but if you don't then you should be able to shop around for an x-ray or a flu shot or for anything minor you need done. If you have a great insurance plan that still takes care of everything for you and your family, great, by all means use it, but I shouldn't have to pay more in insurance premiums to cover everyone too [INSERT CHOICE OF WORD HERE] to get their own insurance. It's bad enough since Obamacare has been announced that the companies premium cost has gone up drastically every year. AT's suggestion of catastrophic insurance makes perfect sense to cover all things emergency/life threatening while you can either use your regular insurance if you have it, or pay cash for it.

Perfect example of how letting the market dictate medical costs works? Lasik surgery. It was really expensive when it first came out but as the technology spread and there were more and more places offering it, the prices came down. If you decided to charge more than market price, you went out of business. Hell, they practically give away Lasik surgery here in Denver anymore, there are ads every day on the radio from multiple places trying to get people's business.

That's how it should be done, not by penalizing me and other working people that already pay for our own insurance.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

When will you attackers of a public healthcare system realise that it shouldnt cost $400 for painkillers and $50,000 for an operation?!?!?
The current system is 99% profit and 1% actual patient care. There should NOT be a profit in human suffering, on any level. Given that those living below the poverty level in America is at its highest level in history I would have thought that more of you would have more sympathy for the sick and suffering, but who cares right? as long as your healthy and can afford your monthly premiums right??
Surely you must feel a smidging of guilt that this system will carry on regardless?

And Acid Trip, if its so cheap for a hospital visit? why are insurers allowed to bill ridiculous amounts to the patient for similar treatments?? isnt that holding a scalpel up to someones throat and telling them to hand over money??

Yes, because letting the government control all that will surely make everything less expensive :thumbsup:

[Muddy]

I think you missed the point in what he wrote. I agree with what he posted. A regular trip to a doctor/clinic shouldn't be a mystery as to how much it will cost and something for your insurance to deal with. Dentists all do it (post prices), why can't doctors? A doctor/clinic that charged exorbitant fees would quickly be out of business. Let the market dictate the costs just like everything else in the world.


But that's the whole problem.. It is like this... We can wish and hope and say things should be a certain way.. But they arent!! That's my point about the way things work in the real world right now... These insurance companies are fucking us because we dont have a choice.... He says we do have a choice... I say the average person doesnt have a choice because in the real world you cant just go into a hospital and pay cash for a heart attack treatment.. or a car wreck.. Abolishing that healthcare bill doesn't help us... It just gives the insurance companies even more power to bleed us for more...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

But that's the whole problem.. It is like this... We can wish and hope and say things should be a certain way.. But they arent!! That's my point about the way things work in the real world right now... These insurance companies are fucking us because we dont have a choice.... He says we do have a choice... I say the average person doesnt have a choice because in the real world you cant just go into a hospital and pay cash for a heart attack treatment.. or a car wreck.. Abolishing that healthcare bill doesn't help us... It just gives the insurance companies even more power to bleed us for more...

Again, you're missing the point...everyone wants to change healthcare in America and right now we have Obamacare coming, which will make things even worse, not better. If they could ram that monstrosity through congress, then it would be just as simple to get the opposite passed. To just sit there and throw your hands up in the air does absolutely nothing. If everyone agrees we need to fix it, then let's fix it the right way, not make things worse by giving it to the government, which can't do anything right when it comes to finances.

[Muddy]

Again, you're missing the point...everyone wants to change healthcare in America and right now we have Obamacare coming, which will make things even worse, not better. If they could ram that monstrosity through congress, then it would be just as simple to get the opposite passed. To just sit there and throw your hands up in the air does absolutely nothing. If everyone agrees we need to fix it, then let's fix it the right way, not make things worse by giving it to the government, which can't do anything right when it comes to finances.


But my point is.. Without this bill.. Will it get fixed? One thing that this bill/law has/is causing at least in the bare minimum, is people are at least starting to share some dialogue. And it isnt just one sided dialogue... It's dialogue that says keep it or not, the system is fucked the way things are now.

[FBD]

MG, yes, it will get fixed...in time. As the whole 3rd party payer system blows up we're going to need to find a way to make prices reflect real value, and that will take a little time for prices to get in line. Like every other Obama initiative, O'care is running towards the wrong end zone in that the downstream results of the policy exacerbates the issues instead of bringing them towards reality. They're both "fixes" of sorts, but do you want one that reflects real value, or do you want one that doesnt reflect real value in the least and you are mandated to pay for it! How's the icing on that cake?

Notice that whenever deep trots out an example it is of the catastrophic order where under a realistic model, that's pretty much exactly where you want to have an insurance company involved, whereas most stuff short of it, the insurance company should not even be involved at all. And the example often includes unconsciousness, so you arent even able to negotiate a price - as if once a procedure is performed, the price has already been chiseled in stone next to the ten commandments.

Deep, gotta stop being so dishonest about misrepresenting things if you want to have a believable argument. To date I still dont see that you have one, outside of a big single payer model that will forever obfuscate real value from the procedure being performed. You just crab that we want too much stuff and dont want to pay for it! No - we have simply been promised this or that by people wishing to buy our votes, and we're finding out more and more plainly that these promises are far beyond what we were ever willing to pay.


Until people see by line what they are paying for, the vast majority will not have much incentive to control the cost. Medicare needs to become a voucher system, insurance companies need to be able to sell to any state, tort reform should dictate less free lunches and lower malpractice rates. Competition, competition, competition.

^that is what's going to fix healthcare costs, MG. :thumbsup:

[Deepsepia]

Actually it does. I've done it several times. If you don't want to pay cash then buy health insurance. What part of choice are you so against? It is possible to NEVER visit a hospital and NEVER pay for health insurance and live a full and healthy life. Humans did it for thousands of years.

If a person wants to forgo health insurance that is their choice. I don't think it's a smart choice, but it's their choice not mine nor the governments.

And why is every example a major surgery? Like I said before, I have personally paid cash for several medical visits. I paid $100 for two IVs and anti-nausea mediation when I went to a clinic with the flu. I hurt my wrist and went to the clinic for an x-ray to make sure nothing was broken. My bill was $150 for the x-ray and examination.

If you want my personal opinion we need catastrophic medical insurance for the big stuff and everything else should be negotiated between the patient and the care giver. If you have cancer or need major surgery you use the catastrophic medical insurance. If you need a sports physical, an IV, or penicillin for strep throat why not pay the doctor directly and cut out the middle man?


Wow, we get to the fundamental misconception at the root of your thinking.

Because you can pay for trivial expenses, therefore you think insurance in unnecessary.

You don't need insurance for strep throat, the flu or a splinter, and yes, if I have a sprained ankle, there's no problem choosing where I want to get it treated. But then, if all there were were cases of strep throat, flu and splinters, then we wouldn't have hospitals, ambulances or many doctors, would we? We'd need a few nurses, some tweezers, and some ampicillin . . . that's not planet Earth, though.

You need insurance on this planet, you may get cancer, be in a serious accident, or have some other expensive ailment, and when those ailments or injuries occur, the opportunity for "choice" won't be there. As you're sitting in the wreck of your car, with your daughter bleeding in the back seat, will you be calling up hospitals to get price quotes?

Perhaps you "know" that this won't happen to you. You'd be the only person on planet Earth with that knowledge.

And by the way, that catastrophic insurance policy that you think advisable requires that they have access to your medical history, including the stuff you paid out-of-pocket for.

If you happened to pay out of pocket for care that should have alerted you to a more serious ailment, and failed to disclose that when buying that catastrophic policy, the insurance company could claim that that fact "should have alerted a reasonable person" to the fact that they had a serious condition -- eg "pre-existing condition," and could deny your claims and cancel your policy on that basis.

The strategy of cancelling out the policies of sick folks is called "rescission" and any mis-statement or omission on your policy application about your medical history --even stuff that you paid for yourself-- can be grounds for cancellation of your policy, and denial of claims, even after the fact.

[Acid Trip]

Because you can pay for trivial expenses, therefore you think insurance in unnecessary.



I NEVER said insurance was unnecessary. In fact, I even said it was foolish to not have insurance. I'll repeat myself again and maybe it will sink in this time.

I'm arguing FOR CHOICE. If an individual CHOOSES to not have health insurance THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. Not mine, not yours, not the governments.

What is it about choice that you are so against? You obviously don't believe individuals can properly make choices based on their circumstances/knowledge/pocketbook/etc so the government must do it for them. That's sad and explains why you are so hard on for a powerful centralized government. After all, people can't be trust! :roll:

[Deepsepia]

I NEVER said insurance was unnecessary.


So you think its necessary, then? Or is it unnecessary? Only two choices on that one: "Not unnecessary=necessary"



In fact, I even said it was foolish to not have insurance. I'll repeat myself again and maybe it will sink in this time.


Oh, I understood that you don't understand the first time. You can't make up your mind whether insurance is necessary or not, sometimes you think it is, sometimes you don't.



I'm arguing FOR CHOICE. If an individual CHOOSES to not have health insurance THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. Not mine, not yours, not the governments.


Something which is necessary is not a choice, by definition.



What is it about choice that you are so against? You obviously don't believe individuals can properly make choices based on their circumstances/knowledge/pocketbook/etc so the government must do it for them. That's sad and explains why you are so hard on for a powerful centralized government. After all, people can't be trust! :roll:

And when the person who "chooses" not to have health insurance arrives at the ER after a car accident, with a ruptured spleen, broken ribs, bleeding in his skull?

How does that "choice" operate then?

Who even knows whether he does or doesn't have insurance?

Would you like the EMTs to wait until his insurance cards can be found?

And if they can't find his insurance, what is it that you think they should do?

[Acid Trip]

So you think its necessary, then?

Oh, I understood that you don't understand the first time. You can't even make up your mind whether insurance is necessary or not.



Something which is necessary is not a choice, by definition.



And when the person who "chooses" not to have health insurance arrives at the ER after a car accident, with a ruptured spleen, broken ribs, bleeding in his skull?

How does that "choice" operate then?

Who even knows whether he does or doesn't have insurance?

Would you like the EMTs to wait until his insurance cards can be found?

And if they can't find his insurance, what is it that you think they should do?

First I'll re-ask my questions. Why are you so against choice? What about individual free will disgusts you so much? Now I'll answer your question.

Does an unconscious person have a choice? Not at the moment, BUT THEY DID BEFORE THEY WERE UNCONSCIOUS. They chose to not carry health insurance and if you want people to be responsible make them suffer the consequences. If people find out they won't be saved if they aren't personally responsible they'll figure out real fast to get their shit together.

People get a free debt reset via bankruptcy. If you don't have insurance, and they treat you, you can eliminate that debt. The next time it happens there is no debt reset and no services rendered. It won't take people long to figure out. If they can't figure it out then natural selection wins again.

This is the personal responsibility Obama is always crowing about; however, the government CANNOT force individual responsibility via the individual insurance mandate. That will be stuck down by the SCOTUS. Nobody is arguing against a healthcare overhaul, but doing it in a way that limits choices is not the answer. Passing a bill that violates the Constitution won't work either (as we'll see).

Allow medical insurance to be sold across state lines and the price will come down instantly. It's free to try but the liberals are against it for some unknown reason. Let the free market work like it does with other industries. Don't assume the free market and private insurance doesn't work when it's been handcuffed into things like "you must buy health insurance from a company in your state" bullshit. That requirement encourages insurance companies to gouge customers because of....limited choice.

There's that damn choice word were again. Annoying little bugger. Too bad choice is what this country was founded on.

[Deepsepia]

First I'll re-ask my questions. Why are you so against choice? What about individual free will disgusts you so much? Now I'll answer your question.

Does an unconscious person have a choice? Not at the moment, BUT THEY DID BEFORE THEY WERE UNCONSCIOUS. They chose to not carry health insurance and if you want people to be responsible make them suffer the consequences. If people find out they won't be saved if they aren't personally responsible they'll figure out real fast to get their shit together.


Um . . . in your alternate universe, perhaps. In this one, everyone requiring emergency medical treatment gets transported and treated at a hospital, even if they didn't choose to carry insurance.



People get a free debt reset via bankruptcy. If you don't have insurance, and they treat you, you can eliminate that debt. The next time it happens there is no debt reset and no services rendered. It won't take people long to figure out. If they can't figure it out then natural selection wins again.


Again, that would be a detail from your parallel universe. On this planet, neither EMTs nor docs stop to figure out the insurance status of patients brought in from a car wreck. In fact, it would be against the law for them to do so.



This is the personal responsibility Obama is always crowing about; however, the government CANNOT force individual responsibility via the individual insurance mandate. That will be stuck down by the SCOTUS. Nobody is arguing against a healthcare overhaul, but doing it in a way that limits choices is not the answer. Passing a bill that violates the Constitution won't work either (as we'll see).

Allow medical insurance to be sold across state lines and the price will come down instantly.
It's free to try but the liberals are against it for some unknown reason. Let the free market work like it does with other industries. Don't assume the free market and private insurance doesn't work when it's been handcuffed into things like "you must buy health insurance from a company in your state" bullshit. That requirement encourages insurance companies to gouge customers because of....limited choice.



Baloney. All kinds of insurance is sold nationwide, or nearly. Major insurers, like "the Blues" operate across many states. So do the big private insurers like Aetna, Cigna, Oxford, Kaiser. That States Attorneys General have always claimed the power to regulate insurers locally, that's a 10th Amendment issue; the States have jurisdiction on in-state commerce, the Federals on interstate. There's nothing about "nationwide" sales that would make a Kaiser policy any cheaper than it is today-- they offer the same policies in states with roughly 100 million people already, and many companies operate in all 50 states.

See, for example


"Aetna Health Insurance Company is a major healthcare provider that services consumers in all fifty states."
http://www.individual-health-plans.com/aetna.htm

Bizarrely for a conservative, what you're asking for is more Federal power-- if what you're saying is that the Federal government should take away the power of Virginia or Florida to act on behalf of their citizens, and to move that power to Washington. Is that what you want? Someone has to have jurisdiction over insurance contracts, who's it going to be? The States, or the Feds? In-state commercial transactions of any kind have always been subject to state law; you rent an apartment in Colorado, its a Colorado contract. You buy a car in California, its A California contract. You buy insurance in Illinois, its an Illinois contract. As it happens, the difference would be nil, the insurers already operate in most of the States, and offer essentially the same contracts everywhere they operate; what you're suggesting is a massive intrusion of Federal authority over-riding the States, and I fail to see any advantage for customers, since the insurance companies are already operating everywhere . . . you're just exchanging a local jurisdiction for a Federal one.




There's that damn choice word were again. Annoying little bugger. Too bad choice is what this country was founded on.

Um, at the time the country was founded, just what sort of medicine (or indeed, of insurance) existed? None. How long did folks live? About 40 years or so.

We live longer today because we have all sorts of things that they didn't have in 1787 . . . like Emergency Rooms, which brings me to:

You didn't answer the question: what happens when someone is brought into the ER?

And it turns out, the answer to that question is also the answer to the question, "why does everyone have to have insurance?"

Mitt Romney explained it, five years ago, in the Wall Street Journal, and his answer is still true today



Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114472206077422547.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries


And there's your libertarian answer: a free ride on government is not libertarian

I'd add, since you don't seem to know it, under EMTALA (Emergency Treatment and Labor Act of 1986, signed into law by Ronald Reagan) ambulances have been required to transport and hospitals have been required to treat medical emergencies and labor, without regard to insurance status.

So what this means is that everyone has a guaranty of access to valuable and expensive emergency medical care, should they need it . . . the only question is "should you be required to pay for it, or should you be permitted to stick some other citizen with the bill".

As Romney correctly points out, there's nothing "libertarian" in your "choice" to enjoy a massive financial benefit at someone else's expense.

[FBD]

no new ideas may be considered when judging these hypotheticals :lol: that's the basis on which you debate these things, deep. that's why I dont much bother addressing your one size fits all crap, you only counter it with how things presently work - especially where things need to change. especially where an idea for change was presented - you cannot even see the downstream results, otherwise you dismiss them. sad we've got so many people in this country brainwashed as you are with regard to solutions.

[Muddy]

no new ideas may be considered when judging these hypotheticals :lol: that's the basis on which you debate these things, deep. that's why I dont much bother addressing your one size fits all crap, you only counter it with how things presently work - especially where things need to change. especially where an idea for change was presented - you cannot even see the downstream results, otherwise you dismiss them. sad we've got so many people in this country brainwashed as you are with regard to solutions.

Are your attacks on Deepsepias explanations, your concession of defeat? From where I sit your style of debating is very similar to Deeps.. You answer what suits you and blow by the things you cant logically answer. The major difference between you two though is Deep usually has some form of evidence to support his views...

[Acid Trip]

The argument doesn't even matter at this point. Deep believes a government run, one size fits all, individual insurance mandate enforced healthcare plan is the only way to fix healthcare. That's unconstitutional and I'll be proven right in due time. I believe in choice because limited choices are bad for the consumer. Gee, maybe that's why AT&T isn't being allowed to buy T-Mobile.

To think that Deep's solution is the only possible solution is fucking retarded.

And Deep you know damn well Blue Cross Blue Shield isn't nationally available insurance. Each state office is run independently from the other states. I can't get BCBS of Pennsylvania can I (living in Texas)? So how the fuck is that nationally available? If I could get BCBS of Pennsylvania while living in Texas it means the two BCBS have to compete. Competition is good because it keeps you honest. That's one of the first things they teach in Business school.

[Acid Trip]

Are your attacks on Deepsepias explanations, your concession of defeat? From where I sit your style of debating is very similar to Deeps.. You answer what suits you and blow by the things you cant logically answer. The major difference between you two though is Deep usually has some form of evidence to support his views...

Anyone can point at a broken system and say "that's broken". Doesn't take a genius. FBD and I have both said the current system is broken. We just don't believe that a single payer, government run, individually mandated insurance is the answer. Deep refuses to believe any other possible system could work. We could try other things FOR FREE and he against even doing that.

As I said it doesn't matter at this point. The individual mandate will be crushed by the SCOTUS and Obamacare will fall to pieces just like Deeps dream of government run healthcare.

[FBD]

Are your attacks on Deepsepias explanations, your concession of defeat? From where I sit your style of debating is very similar to Deeps.. You answer what suits you and blow by the things you cant logically answer. The major difference between you two though is Deep usually has some form of evidence to support his views...

not in the least, in fact, its just pointing out his cyclical nature of argument. we go from "how do we fix this or that" to discussing possibilities of how to fix it, then deep "shoots it down" ( :rofl: ) with an example of how things currently run, completely ignoring the ideas and suggestions that would change the outcome.

simply put, deep does not believe in the free market's ability to come up with solutions and believes that government directed ones are far more easy and worthwhile to corral the populace into.

to such an extent that he cannot even extrapolate a free market solution and claims it ineffective and counterproductive without even "going there."


that's why I just keep laughing at his replies, because he twists and obfuscates like a seasoned lawyer-politician. "you cant pin something on me if I keep shuckin & jivin" - :roll: :lol: thx for playin!

[Muddy]

simply put, deep does not believe in the free market's ability to come up with solutions and believes that government directed ones are far more easy and worthwhile to corral the populace into.

to such an extent that he cannot even extrapolate a free market solution and claims it ineffective and counterproductive without even "going there."




But don't you see? The free market has had 50 years to come up with something.. The free market is getting much much worse.... When do we pull the reigns back and say "Hold the fuck on!!"

Sometimes big business needs a little regulation to keep them working inside the constraints of honesty and morality..

[FBD]

:lol: you obviously dont understand the myriad ways regulations fuck with the free market.

some regulation is good and necessary, most of it is worthless useless political favors for a constituency. too much of it distorts the equations by which a business bases their projections on it, and when it gets to the point where political considerations take precedence over market considerations, that is when businesses start failing because they can no longer keep an accurate tab on how to respond to the market - which is *the* thing that winds up being the bottom line at the end of it all. market considerations are more powerful and WILL override political ones sooner or later, but when they have been competing head to head with policital considerations like that - you know what the result is - systemic risk.

when's the last time we really had a true free market? not in the last 50 years, I'll tell you that much. politicians have been making promises and extracting concessions for a looooong time, brotha!

[KevinD]

Precisely. In my opinion, all the things that are wrong with our current form of healthcare/insurance can be laid directly at existing government regulation, therefore, it makes total sense to just let the government totally take it over, since they have done a stellar job in other endeavors.

[Acid Trip]

Precisely. In my opinion, all the things that are wrong with our current form of healthcare/insurance can be laid directly at existing government regulation, therefore, it makes total sense to just let the government totally take it over, since they have done a stellar job in other endeavors.

I smell sarcasm. If that's not sarcasm I smell you are certifiable.

[FBD]

:lol: you know kev better than that...he's just makin the case for O running towards the opposite end zone :dance:

[KevinD]

Yes, and yes...O could play for the Texans, lol