High Cost of Health Insurance

For the record, I'm not arguing against people getting healthcare.
I simply want it to be paid for fairly.
Meaning Affordable care act is a good step towards everyone getting affordable healthcare.

 

Dr's fees fall under different payment. Dr's work for themselves and are therefore not included on facility billings. Keep it.

 

God forbid people want to know if they are healthy or not. Yes, checkups cost money. However, It will be far more expensive to not get the checkup at all if a disease occurs.


A great example is Kyle Willis. He had a toothach but eventually this problem moved to his brain and killed him. He didn't have insurance.

Yes, it would have cost him(unemployed) or his parents money to get him insurance but what was the cost of not getting it.:smt102

 

Nothing sexier than an informed beautiful woman

 

You do understand that those who aren't insured get care and cost us money anyway right and I say us because the more people who get treated and don't pay it falls on us who are insured. The reason I asked you if you thought this way because of "moral hazard" is because I had a professor who thought in the same pattern as you. The idea that making something more available would create more reckless behavior which in turn would cause more people to consume health insurance. That line of thinking ignores human action. People don't need health insurance to be reckless and need medical coverage. Its better that they are covered to relieve long term costs. Do you marginal cost benefit graph?

 

fixed

 

I like his "more nurses, more physicians, more admin staff, etc" as if not having more jobs is a bad thing!

 

I've explained this multiple times. Yes, I know they can go and get treated in the Emergency Room and this gets transferred to the taxpayer. But the number of visits of an insured person is much higher because they go in for regular checkups.

The Affordable Care Act expands coverage, but does not lower the cost of medical care. It shifts the cost burden to businesses to provide coverage. It also will impact those younger patients who will be forced to pay more than someone who has preexisting conditions.

 

It's not a bad thing, but it costs money. Let's not forget that hospitals are a business too. So they will hire more people and buy more technology, but you can rest assured you will pay for that. Just like as Disneyland creates more rides, they need to hire more people. But guess what? Ticket prices shoot through the roof year after year because you foot the bill.

 

I was paying for my insurance from the get go and it rose during the bush era.

Disney's prices are going to rise. It isn't what it was from the day that they started selling tickets.
Inflation happens.

It is difficult for anyone to take the comment that prices are going to rise when even before Obama they were rising. They rose in the bush era.
They rose in the clinton era and even in the Reagan era.
Nothing new.
If people are not paying for the rides and are sneaking in but you still have to pay your employees, will you increase the price of a ticket to make the difference?

 

That's all an economist is...a philosopher.

 

You should seek out the cost of well care vs emergent or sick care. It is more cost effective to prevent than treat an illness. :smt023

 

There is philosophy in it, in the sense that there are multiple ways to solve problems, but the math cannot be ignored. lol! A real economist is an analyst that can isolate multiple variables thoughout a social system for cause and affect, not just make a case for tax policy. Politicians tend to be a bunch of lawyers that get by with a lame philosophy while pretending to understand economics.

 

Not quite. An economist simply predicts the outcome of the overall economy on a wide range of measures. They need the aide of financiers, and other people who handle mathematical number crunching. And this is where everything goes philosophical. If it's strictly numerically factual, then we wouldn't have a Milton Friedman on one end of the economic spectrum and Paul Krugman on the other end. They all have their own philosophies, and they can rely on certain mathematical methods, but in the end...numbers are just numbers and only those who are fascinated or specialize in numerical theories can distinguish one source as credible and the other as exaggerated.

 

So It is possible to get a PHD in economics and not be good at math?? lmao And how do you think they predict the economy without using math?? Basically you believe economics is bullshit. lol

 

You can't say that economics is really a science. Selective reading comprehension may prove problematic.

I didn't say that economists aren't capable of mathematical comprehension, nor that it's bullshit. It's the fact that many of them rely on mathematical theories to determine any projections of the immediate economy and future. Again, you cannot ignore the fact that they can skewer numbers in their favor, especially when they are economic academics professing a certain economic philosophy.

Hence, the unreliability of those who are willing to take a partisan stance.

 

So then what about theoretical physicists who don't believe in string theory and others who do?
The problem with economics is that you try to predict human behavior and other real world conditions, it doesn't exist in a vacuum which is why you may have varying results but there are certain applications of mathematical theorems that have proven to be good indicators like game theory in figuring out why cartels and monopolies aren't good policies.
You do have an interesting take though.

 

Well, I guess you have no respect for the social sciences. Economics, Finance, psychology nor sociology holds no interest for you just because there tend to be more abstractions than you are accustomed too?? btw The social sciences rely on the same math that the physical sciences rely on, no need to discount the social sciences if you prefer the physical ones. Personally I like both physics and economics. One science can be applied to electronic systems, the other can be applied to social systems. They have more in common than meets the eye. I am willing to bet you will develop more respect for the social sciences in the years to come.

 

That's basically when I'm implying and that's why I used people like Krugman (lefty economist and widely respected) and Friedman (conservative economist and widely respected) to prove that economists generally relies a lot on such measures to prove their philosophy right.

 

Dude we are paying anyway. Where do you think the costs of people who don't pay go? You think the insurance company or hospitals absorb that? No insurance carriers do. And the cost of an insured person getting a check up is around 140 dollars depending on where you go in the country. That regular check, which most people only get twice a year stop making it sound like people go 50 times a year, is a lot cheaper than a person having cancer that goes unchecked or diabetes or cardiovascular disease which costs tens of thousands of dollars in treatments and medication per year.
If you want I can break it down for you with simple math. And by the way I've heard that argument with young people being burdened with the cost and that's such short sighted bs. These people they supposedly have to pay for would be on the plan when they get older. Better to get in front of these things earlier than later.