🚀 go-pugleaf

Clay Maugans <cbm0470@acs.tamu.edu> wrote in article
<3508059F.8A815511@acs.tamu.edu>...
> 
> matt@pumatech.com wrote:
> 
> >
> >         Moreover, health care is not driven by direct market forces;
> >         it's driven by forces filtered by insurance companies. Medical
> >         insurance is the primary reason we have such high medical
> >         costs - health care pricing isn't determined by what the people
> >         as a market can bear, but rather what the insurance industry
> >         as a market can bear. Since insurance simply passes off the
> >         high costs (plus some added profit) to the consumers in the
> >         form of premiums, and the consumers in this case are mostly
> >         corporations, the public and public market strenth has almost
> >         no direct effect on medical care pricing.
> >
> >         The insurance industry is using the "collective" effect of
> >         thier customers (corporations) to hide the true costs of
> >         medical care from the actual recipiants of that care. Of
course,
> >         we all pay for it in the end (in lower salaries, mainly) but
> >         we don't notice it. We also pay *more* than if the money was
> >         put back into our salries as cash and health care was direct
> >         market driven. The profiteering going on in the "medical/
> >         insurance complex" is the single most significant factor in
> >         high medical costs.
> >
> >         When I worked for a company making nuclear pharmecuticals, we
> >         would produce a single dose of medicine (including costs for
> >         all labor rates, building, fleet of cars to deliver, etc.) for
> >         about $50 . We then sold this to the hospital for $250, who
> >         then sold it to the patient for $400 . All this price gouging
> >         was possible because the insurance industry gleefully paid
> >         this $400 price, and then upped the premiums appropriately
> >         (with another 10% or so added for themselves). So, a product
> >         which should really cost the hospital perhaps $70 and the
> >         patient $100 is now a "skyrocketing health care cost"
statistic.
> >
> >         Insurance industries now make a lot of noise about "controlling
> >         costs", but don't really do much about it (or do the wrong
things),
> >         and in any case it is too late. Too many people are too wedded
> >         to the status quo to permit any real reform.
> >
> >         The time to fix all this was in the 1950's, when giving medical
> >         insurance as a "benifit" to get people to work for you became
> >         a big "fad" with companies. Making medical care direct market
> >         driven would be the best solution, but it would be very painful
> >         in the short term.
> >
> >         -Matt
> >
> >
> 
> Well put.  Also, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. 
Market
> forces *really* don't effect insurance companies.  Perhaps we should
first
> rethink how we do our insurance companies first.
> 
But even if we limit ourselves to just looking at insurance companies
(which I agree is a  part of the problem with rising medical costs) it is
not the whole reason behind medical costs.  

A big part is the advances in medicine itself.   For example, where once we
were limited to x-rays, we now have MRIs.  Not only is the MRI machine
itself expensive, but so are the costs for the room to hold it (the need
for special shielding, etc.) the costs to maintain it it, etc.  Almost
every area of medicine has seen similar advances with new treatment
capabilites, procedure and diagnostic capabilities that not only bring new
hope but higher costs.  

With new medical advances, we are giving patients a new lease on life which
often extends the amount of treatment and cost.  For example, 50 years ago
a person with severe kidney disease died.  Now they can get kidney dialysis
and a transplant if they are lucky.  Instead of dying, they now need
long-term,follow-up care.

As a result of medical advances, not only do people's expectation rise, but
there is an increase for error or adverse side effects.  .  As a result, we
see more malpractice suits, which lead to increases in malpractice
insurance costs.

Medicare also has lead to increases, but not just because of govt.
involvement.  Without medicare, many of the people currently getting
medical treatment probably wouldn't get any medical care --no care, no
costs.

Only idiots like Tracey/David feel that the solution is simple -- get the
govt. out of it.  If it were that simple, we should be able to look at
countries which have little or no govt. involvement like Zaire and see a
working health care system.