The CBO on insurance premiums

[Chapdog]

Those are medical recomendations made by medical professionals and are not mandated rules for treatment.

They have noithing to do with what will be covered care.

USPSTF (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force)

According to the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, US Preventive Services Task Force is "an independent panel of experts in primary care and prevention that systematically reviews the evidence of effectiveness and develops recommendations for clinical preventive services."[1] The task force, a panel of experts, is funded and appointed by the government of the United States

This "death panel" recommends what should be covered and what shouldn't be.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Staff are not included, just members of Congress.

You are correct... it is directed at those who vote for a government run plan.

Also to correct myself... it is HRES 615.... not HR 615

 

[Bonestorm]

You are correct... it is directed at those who vote for a government run plan.

Also to correct myself... it is HRES 615.... not HR 615

Actually, I was wrong, under Reid's bill it is all members of Congress and their staff.

 

[Bonestorm]

That is complete bullshit. You think that because the government 'sets a price' that supply and demand no longer exist? That transportation costs and duplication doesn't increase costs.

You continue to say 'population density has nothing to due with costs' and then turn around and refuse to answer the simple question I posed to you long ago.

Which costs more..... hospital/medical services for one city with a population of a million people or the same exact services for 40 cities with a combined population of one million people?

I know you will avoid answering that again. Probably by yet another strawman. (such as your idiocy above pretending I don't care about others and because I 'got mine')

I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you that you are wrong. There is plenty of research available on the subject. You should familiarize yourself with it. In every other developed country the government sets prices for health services whereas we "leave it to the market."

I'm not going to bother arguing hypotheticals when we can look at real studies and data. You can start here:

http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/11/us_medical_pric.html

 

[TuTu Monroe]

that like saying the government is going to save money by adding coverage to 30+Million Americans. The health care savings estimates I am hearing is reminiscent of the voodoo trickle down economics that Democrats have been ripping on for 30 years. Have we come full circle?

Heh, heh, this whole thing is a big joke and the joke is on us.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you that you are wrong. There is plenty of research available on the subject. You should familiarize yourself with it. In every other developed country the government sets prices for health services whereas we "leave it to the market."

I'm not going to bother arguing hypotheticals when we can look at real studies and data. You can start here:

http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/11/us_medical_pric.html

LMAO... if you don't understand the basic principle of economies of scale... just say so. There is plenty of research on the topic. You should educate yourself on it before making idiotic statements that it doesn't matter.

The point you FAIL to comprehend is that even if the government sets prices... the prices would HAVE TO RISE if their populations were less dense. That is a FACT.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you that you are wrong. There is plenty of research available on the subject. You should familiarize yourself with it. In every other developed country the government sets prices for health services whereas we "leave it to the market."

I'm not going to bother arguing hypotheticals when we can look at real studies and data. You can start here:

http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/11/us_medical_pric.html

Side note you twit...

your business week article... that talks about the COST factor that I mentioned. It does not discuss population density.

Now, take away the defensive medicine practices and insane malpractice rates and what would happen to our COSTS????

Oh yeah... they would DROP.

Go out and find a study on malpractice premiums for doctors in various countries.

 

[Topspin]

In every other developed country the government sets prices for health services whereas we "leave it to the market."

LOL, yeah we need some already on the take millionaires with thier hands out to the medical lobbyist setting our prices.
Thanks for that it was great!!!!

 

[Bonestorm]

Side note you twit...

your business week article... that talks about the COST factor that I mentioned. It does not discuss population density.

Actually, the article links to various sources that support what I have been saying, our costs are ridiculously high because our prices for health services are so high, and out prices for health services are so high because, unlike every other developed country, we have no government cost controls. Density is not discussed in the BW article or any other, because it is a non-factor.

Now, take away the defensive medicine practices and insane malpractice rates and what would happen to our COSTS????

Oh yeah... they would DROP.

No they wouldn't. Practically nothing would happen. A modest decrease of 0.5% over 10 years.

Go out and find a study on malpractice premiums for doctors in various countries.

No, thanks. Why don't you go out and find a study on rates charged by doctors, including specialists, by country?

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... if you don't understand the basic principle of economies of scale... just say so. There is plenty of research on the topic. You should educate yourself on it before making idiotic statements that it doesn't matter.

The point you FAIL to comprehend is that even if the government sets prices... the prices would HAVE TO RISE if their populations were less dense. That is a FACT.

Listen, junior. There are very sophisticated and rigorous studies of the differential in the costs paid by us versus the costs paid by folks in the rest of the developed world and I do not know of a single study anywhere by anyone that attributes the cost differential to population density. Not one. Maybe oyu can help me out on that.

And again, your "population density" argument really founders on Australia and some of the Scandinavian countries. It's just plain stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, the article links to various sources that support what I have been saying, our costs are ridiculously high because our prices for health services are so high, and out prices for health services are so high because, unlike every other developed country, we have no government cost controls. Density is not discussed in the BW article or any other, because it is a non-factor.

So our 'costs are high because our prices are high'??? LMAO ... thanks for that tidbit of knowledge captain obvious. Your pretending that the lack of government price setting is the reason is quite comical as well. IF you pull your head out of your ass long enough, you will see that we can also address the COST issue by reducing the things that are forcing them ever higher. ie... defensive medicine and malpractice premiums. If you don't address what is causing prices to rise, it matters not if the government comes in and 'sets' prices. The government will still have to account for the higher costs and thus charge a higher price.

Again, if you think economies of scale are a non-factor in comparing the various countries, then you are an idiot who has no comprehension of economics.

No they wouldn't. Practically nothing would happen. A modest decrease of 0.5% over 10 years.

LMAO... so rather than seeing a continuing INCREASE in costs, we would actually see a decrease, yet you don't see any benefit to that? That said, I would love to see where you derived your 0.5% over 10 years.

No, thanks. Why don't you go out and find a study on rates charged by doctors, including specialists, by country?

my, you are quite the dumbass... if you don't look at WHY the rates charged by doctors are higher, then what is the point? All you end up with is 'they charge higher rates' and you don't address the WHY.

If you instead look at the breakdown of the costs... THEN you will find out WHAT is causing the costs to be higher.

I know you don't really want to know, you just want the government to 'set' prices.... because that will solve everything.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Listen, junior. There are very sophisticated and rigorous studies of the differential in the costs paid by us versus the costs paid by folks in the rest of the developed world and I do not know of a single study anywhere by anyone that attributes the cost differential to population density. Not one. Maybe oyu can help me out on that.

My god... you truly are an idiot. I never said density of population is the sole factor, thus you won't find any studies that attribute that as the primary reason. But to ignore the fact that economies of scale plays a part in it is simply moronic.

And again, your "population density" argument really founders on Australia and some of the Scandinavian countries. It's just plain stupid.

No, the population density of those countries is also much greater than the US.... a point that we already discussed (and I provided data for) on the last thread where you went off on a knee-jerk tangent about this topic on which you clearly have NO comprehension.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale[/ame]

Do read up on it a bit... the above link will get you started.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... so rather than seeing a continuing INCREASE in costs, we would actually see a decrease, yet you don't see any benefit to that? That said, I would love to see where you derived your 0.5% over 10 years.

I deleted all of the nonsensical crap in your response but thought that this nonsensical tidbit deserved special attention. I double checked the source (an October CBO study linked below). Enacting tort reform would yield a 0.5% reduction in health expenditures but not over a ten year period.

CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services.

Acting like a .5% decrease in costs is going to solve all the problems is just plain stupid. I've pointed this out to you before but you routinely ignore it and continue on with your bullshit.


http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf

 

[Bonestorm]

My god... you truly are an idiot. I never said density of population is the sole factor, thus you won't find any studies that attribute that as the primary reason. But to ignore the fact that economies of scale plays a part in it is simply moronic.



No, the population density of those countries is also much greater than the US.... a point that we already discussed (and I provided data for) on the last thread where you went off on a knee-jerk tangent about this topic on which you clearly have NO comprehension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale

Do read up on it a bit... the above link will get you started.

I understand economies of scale perfectly well. There are many many reasons why economics classes don't stop at ECON 101 and there are many many reasons why the economics of heathcare is a very specialized field with many experts, none of which include "population density" as among the factors impacting the differential in costs between the U.S. and other developed countries.

Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't read all of the literature. Do you have a single study anywhere by anyone that attributes any of the cost differential to population density? If so, please link it or provide some sort or sourcing. I'd love to see it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I deleted all of the nonsensical crap in your response

I did the same for you....

Face it... you don't understand economies of scale... which is the true reason you don't want to discuss it or educate yourself on.

Your 0.5% was for tort reform only

The current plan in the Senate is projected to RAISE costs (unless the government 'subsidizes' them)... so compared to the Senate fiasco... yes... 0.5% decrease is better than an INCREASE.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I understand economies of scale perfectly well. There are many many reasons why economics classes don't stop at ECON 101 and there are many many reasons why the economics of heathcare is a very specialized field with many experts, none of which include "population density" as among the factors impacting the differential in costs between the U.S. and other developed countries.

Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't read all of the literature. Do you have a single study anywhere by anyone that attributes any of the cost differential to population density? If so, please link it or provide some sort or sourcing. I'd love to see it.

No, you do not understand it. Otherwise you wouldn't post such idiotic crap stating it has no bearing on the cost differential.

Is this another 'if you don't have a peer-reviewed' type things with you? Kind of like your idiocy on global warming? Were you not one of the ones chirping on and on about 'you must have peer reviewed articles' in order for me to listen' people?

Whether or not a study discusses economies of scale is irrelevant to the fact that economies of scale exist in ANY business. Pretending they don't exist in health care is moronic. The denser the population, the greater the economies of scale for health care for a city/state/country. Period.

Something you would have learned had you not slept through that intro Econ class.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, you do not understand it. Otherwise you wouldn't post such idiotic crap stating it has no bearing on the cost differential.

Is this another 'if you don't have a peer-reviewed' type things with you? Kind of like your idiocy on global warming? Were you not one of the ones chirping on and on about 'you must have peer reviewed articles' in order for me to listen' people?

Whether or not a study discusses economies of scale is irrelevant to the fact that economies of scale exist in ANY business. Pretending they don't exist in health care is moronic. The denser the population, the greater the economies of scale for health care for a city/state/country. Period.

Something you would have learned had you not slept through that intro Econ class.

I'll take any person anywhere other than you. I don't even need peer reviewed. Just one person will suffice for now.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'll take any person anywhere other than you. I don't even need peer reviewed. Just one person will suffice for now.

http://www.answers.com/topic/health-care

"Low population density and greater travel times and barriers in rural areas affect service availability, the ability of people to get to those services, and the economic viability of the services. Lower population density also means a lower volume of patients and less provider income. Reduced fees and the refusal of insurers to pay for care often destabilize private professional practices in rural areas, leading to greater shortages of personnel.

The lower the population density and the larger the area over which the population is distributed, the fewer the available health services and the longer the travel distances to access these services. Emergency medical services in such areas are scattered over great distances and often staffed with volunteers who have other jobs. Emergency care for severe trauma or major acute illnesses, such as stroke and heart attack, may take longer to arrive than in other areas, causing increased morbidity and mortality. Poor roads or geographic barriers, such as mountains or rivers, magnify the effects of distance. More remote areas with the capacity to pay for the technology, such as western Kansas, are beginning to use telemedicine to improve access for primary care and certain specialty care, such as psychiatry and dermatology."

http://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumBastRueWesbury93.htm

"Geography: The geography and demographics of the U.S. has a lot to do with its delivery of health care services. The U.S. is a very large country with a very ethnically diverse population. It also has a very low population density compared to other nations. Because we are aggressive in receiving health care services, we try to have hospitals and clinics close to patients. Therefore, because our population is dense, we have to provide many facilities in a lot of places, resulting in more facilities than other countries provide. The large size of our country along with a diverse population has lead to “a decentralized and competitive system of financing and delivering health care” (37)."

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.answers.com/topic/health-care

"Low population density and greater travel times and barriers in rural areas affect service availability, the ability of people to get to those services, and the economic viability of the services. Lower population density also means a lower volume of patients and less provider income. Reduced fees and the refusal of insurers to pay for care often destabilize private professional practices in rural areas, leading to greater shortages of personnel.

The lower the population density and the larger the area over which the population is distributed, the fewer the available health services and the longer the travel distances to access these services. Emergency medical services in such areas are scattered over great distances and often staffed with volunteers who have other jobs. Emergency care for severe trauma or major acute illnesses, such as stroke and heart attack, may take longer to arrive than in other areas, causing increased morbidity and mortality. Poor roads or geographic barriers, such as mountains or rivers, magnify the effects of distance. More remote areas with the capacity to pay for the technology, such as western Kansas, are beginning to use telemedicine to improve access for primary care and certain specialty care, such as psychiatry and dermatology."

http://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumBastRueWesbury93.htm

"Geography: The geography and demographics of the U.S. has a lot to do with its delivery of health care services. The U.S. is a very large country with a very ethnically diverse population. It also has a very low population density compared to other nations. Because we are aggressive in receiving health care services, we try to have hospitals and clinics close to patients. Therefore, because our population is dense, we have to provide many facilities in a lot of places, resulting in more facilities than other countries provide. The large size of our country along with a diverse population has lead to “a decentralized and competitive system of financing and delivering health care” (37)."

Nice. An answers.com piece that doesn't address the question and a summary of a book written in 1993 (with a foreward by Dick Armey, by the way) published by the Heartland Institute.

Well, you did manage to dig up one book that might support your theory. Nice work, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nice. An answers.com piece that doesn't address the question and a summary of a book written in 1993 (with a foreward by Dick Armey, by the way) published by the Heartland Institute.

Well, you did manage to dig up one book that might support your theory. Nice work, SF.

Do a google search yourself you arrogant piece of shit.... take a look at all of the health care articles that are out there on the topic. They require you to purchase them, but they discuss this very issue.

Also... you asked for 'one other person' rather than an article. That is what I provided for you.... because I knew if I did as you asked, you would attack the person and pretend the content was again irrelevant.

You are a hack. Of the Dixie level.

I'll take any person anywhere other than you. I don't even need peer reviewed. Just one person will suffice for now. "