Affordable Care Act Supreme Court Hearings this week

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The above post re-emphasizes that your position is about fairness. You keep saying "if the government set prices, health care would be cheaper". When asked How? health care would be cheaper, your reply is "because the government would be setting the prices."

If it's that easy, maybe the government should tell gas stations how much they can charge for a gallon of gas. How about having them regulate the price of a fishing reel? I'm sure Van Staal would still have room for profit if they sold their reels for half the price.

As I have said above, how about the government stay out of telling businesses what they can and cannot do and take action in the areas the government actual should have a roll in.
For instance:
- It is ridiculous that I cannot purchase medical (or vehicle) insurance from a company outside of Massachusetts. Nothing is more effective on creating competitive pricing than competition. Yet the government requires me to purchase through a company registered in Massachusetts.
- How about developing tort reform? Did you know an Obstetrician is potentially on the hook for every child they deliver until the kid turns 18? That's why many OBs have malpractice insurance rates far exceeding 6 figures. Maybe that has some effect on the cost of medical care.
- Drug companies and medical supply companies are allowed to distort the spirit of trademark laws in order to keep drug costs astronomically high. Yes, they need to earn back money and profit from their R&D but the exploitation is ridiculous.

Let's not allow for the further unnecessary expansion of the government's power and will over corporations and the people. The government holds enough power already to effect change without further regulating the free market.

The government regulates Electric, telephone, and natural rates. IN Mass they regulate car insurance cost, so what difference does it make if they regulate HealthCare cost nationally.


Do you think Obamacare is going to reign in the cost of healthcare?


There were 3 specialties that were over 100,000 for average cost
of premium. Orthopedist was around 89,000 and the other 21 specialties were less than 60,000 in 2010. But Massachusetts has one of the highest in the nation rates There are other states where every specialty is under 100,000, and according to Mass Div of insurance rates seem to have stabilized.

I definitely think that tort reform is needed, drug companies need to be regulated better, but bottom line is if you are charging X dollars 20% of X dollars as payment, and making your nut, then there is something wrong with your prices.

That is price gouging at it's finest.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

The government regulates Electric, telephone, and natural rates. IN Mass they regulate car insurance cost, so what difference does it make if they regulate HealthCare cost nationally.

Considering that electric, telephone and natural gas companies have government-sanctioned monopolies issued by towns, they should be regulated. My preference is to not have the government-sanctioned monopolies and allow the free market to do its thing.

Do you think Obamacare is going to reign in the cost of healthcare?

Not even a little bit - and that's not because I think it's going to be created impotent by the Supreme Court. ObamaCare, if allowed to completely materialize, will have no effect on prices while further contributing to long waiting times to see a specialist.

There were 3 specialties that were over 100,000 for average cost
of premium. Orthopedist was around 89,000 and the other 21 specialties were less than 60,000 in 2010. But Massachusetts has one of the highest in the nation rates There are other states where every specialty is under 100,000, and according to Mass Div of insurance rates seem to have stabilized.

Do these seem reasonable to you? I've read that approximately 10% of medical costs are due to malpractice insurance. According to the wikipedia (take the source for what it is) entry on "Medical Malpractice", 60% of claims against doctors are dropped (still costing an average $22k per dropped claim) and 90% of the time cases go to trial, the doctor is found to be not negligent (yet costing an average $100,000/case).

How about a situation like in the UK where the loser in these frivolous suits are held liable for all or a % of the legal expenses? How about creating a limitation of 1-year from the incident to bring up a claim? How about not allowing families to sue every time someone that needs a high-risk surgery dies?

This country has turned into such a litigious society that someone that gets injured breaking into my house could sue me for medical damages. A little bit of tort reform would do this country some good and could have a real beneficial impact, not only on medical costs, but on society as a whole. This is an area that the government actually has direct control over.

I definitely think that tort reform is needed, drug companies need to be regulated better, but bottom line is if you are charging X dollars 20% of X dollars as payment, and making your nut, then there is something wrong with your prices.

That is price gouging at it's finest.

And when Uncle Scam starts telling medical institutions how much they can charge, you know what's going to happen? Smaller practices will close down because their overhead is too high and the tight margins created by the government won't be sustainable. Also, medical institutions will be forced to cut corners and reduce the quality of care in order to be sustainable.

Name me one market that has every benefited by being over-regulated by the government. Typically, more governmental regulation results in significantly more red-tape while having little to no benefit for the consumer.

Like I said above, maybe the government should regulate the price of a gallon of gas and the price of bread. Those prices are too high too.

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE]Considering that electric, telephone and natural gas companies have government-sanctioned monopolies issued by towns, they should be regulated. My preference is to not have the government-sanctioned monopolies and allow the free market to do its thing./[QUOTE]

Technically telephone companies are no longer monopolies since cell phone, cable tv, and Clec carriers. You can also puchase your electricity from someone other than Ngrid or Nstar, and they just transport it to the end user so again not a monopoly. Not sure about the gas company though, but you could heat your house with alternative fuels like oil, propane, wood, coal or pellets.


[QUOTE]Do these seem reasonable to you? I've read that approximately 10% of medical costs are due to malpractice insurance. According to the wikipedia (take the source for what it is) entry on "Medical Malpractice", 60% of claims against doctors are dropped (still costing an average $22k per dropped claim) and 90% of the time cases go to trial, the doctor is found to be not negligent (yet costing an average $100,000/case)./[QUOTE]

Yeah considering my Ortho guy does surgery two days a week, the day of my surgery he was doing 7 or 8 surgeries that day, which the nurses say was average. So he is averaging say 14 surgeries a week or close to 700 a year which at 10000 a pop is 7 million dollars. So that 100,000 is about 1.5 percent of his operating costs. not 10 percent.



[QUOTE]Not even a little bit - and that's not because I think it's going to be created impotent by the Supreme Court. ObamaCare, if allowed to completely materialize, will have no effect on prices while further contributing to long waiting times to see a specialist./[QUOTE]


At least we finally agree on something..

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

At least we finally agree on something..