The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: I'd like comments from 777...& any others,

  1. #1
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,292

    Default I'd like comments from 777...& any others,

    ...on this article.

    UB

    The 'costs' of medical care

    Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist -


    We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" -- either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.



    There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes -- or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

    Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

    Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive -- but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.

    Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance -- and fewer people who can afford it.

    Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.

    If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.

    What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.

    Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.

    Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.

    There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.

    The high costs of "defensive medicine" -- expensive tests, medications, and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients -- could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.

    If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.

    Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    Sewell says what I have repeated here several times: there is no free lunch. Somebody pays ... always.

    Interesting point about the UK "importing" doctors. Don't believe that has been mentioned before ... even though the US already has many doctors from other countries practicing here.

    I would also agree about reducing costs ... unless there is a way to do that, the cost of medical care will continue to increase. Requiring the present uninsured to have insurance is one factor in the cost of medical insurance for all of us who DO have it. But it is not the ONLY factor.

    New meds and treatments are increasing lifespans. As people get older, they need more care. I'm sure that advances in technology for medical care will continue to increase ... and which of us would like to have that cease? As Dave says, nobody gets out of here alive ... so cost of care can be realistically expected to continue to increase.

    Several theories have been advanced for containing costs; some of them are good ones. I just don't want the government in charge of administrating those concepts. (i.e. the Mayo Clinic "team approach").
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    You could reduce costs tomorrow by removing the parasites from the system. The only problem with that is they are the Democrat base.

    Don't P.O. the base regards,
    Terry Moseley
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    I believe the major item of Sowell's article is the "tort reform" necessity.

    "If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this."

    This puts the "healthcare" farce in perspective...we know it's NOT about improving healthcare.

    This is of the highest necessity...FIRST...before any of the other considerations.

    Then we can add, "All citizens of this nation must be under the same healthcare coverage!" So those voting for this bill will have to live by it and pay for it as well.

    Without those two provisions, whatever is passed is a sham. It will fall into the same realm as our political representation without term limits.

    Tort reform and all politician inclusion should be required by the people, or we have just awarded another total freedom to the oligarchy.

    UB
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,046

    Default

    Thomas Sowell is a brilliant man & researches his writings thoroughly. I am just re-reading "Black Rednecks & White Liberals". An inappropriate name for the book, but any one who like to read real history should read it.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
    I believe the major item of Sowell's article is the "tort reform" necessity.

    "If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this."

    This puts the "healthcare" farce in perspective...we know it's NOT about improving healthcare.

    This is of the highest necessity...FIRST...before any of the other considerations.

    Then we can add, "All citizens of this nation must be under the same healthcare coverage!" So those voting for this bill will have to live by it and pay for it as well.

    Without those two provisions, whatever is passed is a sham. It will fall into the same realm as our political representation without term limits.

    Tort reform and all politician inclusion should be required by the people, or we have just awarded another total freedom to the oligarchy.

    UB
    I would add to the Tort reform. Make the attorneys that file bogus claims also professionally liable just as an engineer or doctor are liable for their professional decisions. So make the problem actually be real before crying wolf in court, else face actual professional liability issues including paying damages to the defendant.

    I hear they are also looking at medical equipment manufacturers who have a 20% profit margin compared to the 4% margins by drug and insurance companies. How dare a company make a profit to sustain itself over the long haul in the USSA rather than not threaten additional competition so that competition would drive down prices and cost.

    I like some of the innovative things happening on the West coast with medical clubs where you pay monthly fees, and your medical needs are taken care of within the medical group. It is cheaper than paying insurance plus costs because the doctors and medical facilities in those clubs do not need to hire staff to file endless insurance claims cutting out middle men and bureaucracy. All the reform will do is kill these clubs in favor of the insurance companies which will drive up costs.

    Allowing competition with innovative methods will drive down costs while still paying those that deserve to be paid for their work.
    Terry Britton, P.E.

    Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    I like some of the innovative things happening on the West coast with medical clubs where you pay monthly fees, and your medical needs are taken care of within the medical group. It is cheaper than paying insurance plus costs because the doctors and medical facilities in those clubs do not need to hire staff to file endless insurance claims cutting out middle men and bureaucracy. All the reform will do is kill these clubs in favor of the insurance companies which will drive up costs.
    Now that's a very innovative approach, I think! Cut out the middle man; let the service providers figure how much they need to make such a program work.

    Additionally, the actual service providers have some idea of how to run a business (which our bureaucrats have no clue about!). Placing fiscal responsibility directly with the consumer and the provider should be motivation for both to truly find the best ways to contain costs.

    Of course, this only makes sense if there is tort reform as well. There is one loophole in tort reform mentioned ... making ambulance chasers pay for their greed ... all-too-often the insurance company makes a "settlement" for reasonably smaller cases. If the case doesn't get litigated, the frivoulous claims still get "rewarded" in such cases.

    PA has such a law (the ability to sue an attorney who initiates a frivolous suit), but if the case does not go before a jury, but is "settled" in front of a judge, then you can't do anything about the costs that were run up by the frivolous claim. The net result is that the judge can usually see through the sham; the case gets settled; and the attorney who initiated it gets off scott free anyhow. Malpractice insurors have to take a stand as well.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #8
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    I don't play the lottery even when it get to the millions of dollars in jackpots. Why? Because I KNOW that dollar bill will buy me a bottle of gatorade, or a candy bar. That lottery ticket costs one dollar.

    It doesn't cost one dollar to take your chances at a million dollar settlement in a malpractice case. Why risk wasting that dollar when you can play the malpractice lottery for free? Keep your dollar and play for free.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

Similar Threads

  1. comments please!!
    By bell in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-14-2009, 09:42 AM
  2. Showing threads 1 to 50 of 777
    By runnindawgz in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 08:24 PM
  3. I like this GSD breeders comments
    By Aussie in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2008, 05:50 PM
  4. VBulletin Questions & Comments
    By Steve Dannaway in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:40 PM
  5. My comments on comments about judges.
    By Steve Amrein in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 06:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •