Conservapedia: The funniest site in the world
-
break the back of the insurance companies
It is far more likely the politicians would take kick-backs from the insurance companies to continue creating taxes designed to force citizens to pay that entire specific industry
-
The reason your health insurance costs are ridiculous? Because Health Insurance Companies are in the business of making money, not making healthy.
Actually, that's the very reason they're so cheap here in the Netherlands: competition.
I pay about 100 euro a month. When I go to the dentist, go see a doctor, etc, I have to pay about 400 euro maximum of what's covered (not sure how much it is now, it does increase and rules do change, as I said, it's still not perfect here). Anything above that, the insurance companies pay. Some things aren't always covered though, but they're usually not the life-threatening parts.
Now, if the prices would go up, nobody would buy their plan anymore, and they'd go bankrupt. So they're forced to stay cheap.
What's wrong with that in the US? Any company would start a plan half the price and they'd make loads of money... Right? Or is that merely due to the insane rates charged by hospitals over there?
-
Sort of. But we have a terrible system where no one knows what anything costs because other people pay for it.
This is very true.
I am American, and I had to go to an ER in Canada... the price lists were on the damn wall for those who are not in the Canadian Health coverage. I was immediately treated and paid the listed price (which was $300 total for an ER visit AND x-ray).
I got in and out up there faster and for a less scary price than you could ever dream of here.
-
I got in and out up there faster and for a less scary price than you could ever dream of here.
Sounds like you were pretty lucky. Though maybe people paying cash get express treatment. I've heard a lot of horror stories about Canadian ER wait times.
-
What's wrong with that in the US? Any company would start a plan half the price and they'd make loads of money... Right?
I believe there are ridiculous regulations that make it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for health insurance companies to compete with each other. From what I've seen there are often one or two big insurers per state and you don't really get to pick which one you use. Sort of like all the local cable/phone monopolies.
-
Ironically, Obama himself didn't have much to do with the law--he just agitated endlessly for it, and then let Pelosi do all the work.
And of course, by "agitated," you meant "lied his ass off about it."
-
Sounds like you were pretty lucky.
I have actually been twice, both times I was in and out in a fairly reasonable amount of time. The second time I had to stay on a morphine drip for a few hours, I didn't inquire as to the price because I was a little beyond caring about anything but fixing the pain.Sounds like you were pretty lucky. Though maybe people paying cash get express treatment. I've heard a lot of horror stories about Canadian ER wait times.
And I've heard a lot of horror stories about US ER wait times. There are horror stores for every experience. Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind.
-
And I've heard a lot of horror stories about US ER wait times. There are horror stores for every experience. Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind.
Yes.
-
I've heard a lot of horror stories about Canadian ER wait times.
Did you hear it from people who make their living defaming non-U.S. healthcare systems?
You know who I mean.
-
Did you hear it from people who make their living defaming non-U.S. healthcare systems?
I suppose some of them could fall into such a category. Not all.
-
Actually at the time a number of congressweasels specifically mentioned single-payer.
-
And I've heard a lot of horror stories about US ER wait times.
US ER wait times are mainly driven by illegals and/or medicare recipients, as can be demonstrated by going to either an urgent care facility or a private hospital's ER (neither of which are covered by EMTALA).
-
@SpoofedEx said:
What's wrong with that in the US? Any company would start a plan half the price and they'd make loads of money... Right? Or is that merely due to the insane rates charged by hospitals over there?
I believe there are ridiculous regulations that make it difficult, if not nearly impossible, for health insurance companies to compete with each other. From what I've seen there are often one or two big insurers per state and you don't really get to pick which one you use. Sort of like all the local cable/phone monopolies.
That's part of it. Another aspect is that in many areas costs are inflated to help cover the expense of treating uninsured people who can't pay. In some areas this is an extreme issue, in other areas, not so much.
And then there's the billing codes. If you are able to get an itemized bill from a hospital, you need a decoder ring to understand it. I had a friend who got a hospital bill and somehow got hold of their list of codes. One of the codes on his bill translated to "Mucus extraction tool" (about $100 for that item). Upon further investigation, he discovered that they were charging him for using the tissues.
So you have terrible regulations, confusing billing practices, which then encourage overbilling, increased charges to cover the expense of people who can't pay, some legitimately high rates, and I'm sure there are plenty of other factors as well. Basically, the healthcare industry in the US is B*****med.
-
One of the codes on his bill translated to "Mucus extraction tool" (about $100 for that item). Upon further investigation, he discovered that they were charging him for using the tissues.
Yeah, that's a classic. The other widespread ones are $500 aspirin or saline.
-
I like how they call themselves creation scientists, as though tacking on "scientist" makes them sound less crazy.
Creation science asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day six of creation[5] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus debunking the Theory of Evolution and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age and creation of the earth.
This may be the most fallacious sentence ever written. They might as well say "it's true because we say so"!
-
Yes. Another political flamewar is a-brewing. I thought we left that back with Community Server? I'm just waiting for @boomzilla and @flabdablet to go at it again. What a week that was!
But seriously, Conservapedia proves Poe's Law quite well. If I were to parody the far-right, that's how I would do it. People tell me there is a place for faith, and assuming that there is, I don't think it is where we can empirically determine the truth value of certain claims about nature.
Also, Discourse isn't that bad.
-
-
Also, Discourse isn't that bad.
You're one of those TCotCDCK bastards aren't you? Aren't you?!
-
That's part of it. Another aspect is that in many areas costs are inflated to help cover the expense of treating uninsured people who can't pay. In some areas this is an extreme issue, in other areas, not so much.
And then there's the billing codes. If you are able to get an itemized bill from a hospital, you need a decoder ring to understand it. I had a friend who got a hospital bill and somehow got hold of their list of codes. One of the codes on his bill translated to "Mucus extraction tool" (about $100 for that item). Upon further investigation, he discovered that they were charging him for using the tissues.
So you have terrible regulations, confusing billing practices, which then encourage overbilling, increased charges to cover the expense of people who can't pay, some legitimately high rates, and I'm sure there are plenty of other factors as well. Basically, the healthcare industry in the US is B*****med.
Yeah, I work with pharmacy management software. I could go on for hours about the insanity of it all. A lot of the problem is actually driven by the insurance companies. They have an incentive to make it as difficult as possible for providers to bill them so that the payment of the claim is delayed or the provider just gives up and provides service for free.
There is a lot of over-regulation, but in some areas there is under-regulation. Insurance companies can pretty much reject a claim for any reason they want. For instance: in the 5010 format (for pharmacy claims) there is the compound flag. The possible values are:
- Compound
- Not a compound
- Not specified
Some insurance companies will reject a claim for a drug that truly was compounded if you send "Compound". Their systems are set up only to mark the claim as payable if you say it is "Not specified". Even more will choke if you send data in that field at all. Regulating what you can and can't reject for would help out significantly (IMO).
-
I don't know, I think that Uncyclopedia might be on top.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Your_mom
Although the hosting move to Wikia is kinda shitty.
Filed under: Thread re-railings
-
Yeah, I work with pharmacy management software. I could go on for hours about the insanity of it all. A lot of the problem is actually driven by the insurance companies. They have an incentive to make it as difficult as possible for providers to bill them so that the payment of the claim is delayed or the provider just gives up and provides service for free.
In college I had a friend who worked for a company that was trying to prevent them from doing that. It was pretty awesome. You don't submit a claim to the insurance company but to them. They make sure that the right forms are used and are filled out properly, so the IC can't reject it. Pretty awesome.
In a total coincidence, a decade later I wound up working for an entirely different company that did the same thing as well as some other related stuff.
-
. Regulating what you can and can't reject for would help out significantly (IMO).
See, what I like about the free market is that intermediaries come along and solve the problem without regulation.
-
Meh, I'm one of those America-hating socialists I hear so much about. There shouldn't need to be a market to help you bill an insurance company. It should be pretty simple...like in most of the rest of the civilized world.
In any case, good on your college friend and that company. That is pretty awesome.
-
Meh, I'm one of those America-hating socialists I hear so much about.
At least you're honest about it.
-
There shouldn't need to be a market
This, full stop, is where you're wrong. When government gets into the act, you wind up first with shit like a light bulb ban, and then, when the peasants complain, instead of just repealing the ban, some crazy new legislation that makes things even worse.
Or possibly closer to home for you[1], the botched English recycling laws that led to people abandoning all their old refrigerators in the countryside because it was prohibitively expensive or whatever to recycle them.
It should be pretty simple...like in most of the rest of the civilized world.
In any case, good on your college friend and that company. That is pretty awesome.
But that's my entire point! Instead of the government taking some kind of heavy-handed approach, which is what they almost always do, people came up with a workaround, entirely on their own! And it works, or they wouldn't make money. (The company I worked for made something like 10 million USD a month 6 years ago when I worked there, with this software, which was actually a sideline for them.)
[1] e.g., if you live in Europe.
-
And here's a portion of how that bill rolls out... The "nodes" contain the related section numbers of the ACA.
Obamacare PDF Chart of Healthcare System
This chart was prepared by Congressman Kevin Brady and was hosted on the IRS website.
-
I wasn't sure if that was real or parody, but then I went back up and read the attribution.
-
Yah, it's real :(...
`Fools! Fools!' shouted Benjamin, prancing round them and stamping the earth with his small hoofs. 'Fools! Do you not see what is written on the side of that van?'
That gave the animals pause, and there was a hush. Muriel began to spell
out the words. But Benjamin pushed her aside and in the midst of a deadly
silence he read:Alfred Simmonds, Horse Slaughterer and Glue Boiler, Willingdon. Dealer
in Hides and Bone-Meal. Kennels SuppliedDo you not understand what that means? They are taking Boxer to the knacker's!'
-
-
How could any sane person possibly think that's a sane idea?
Have you ever listened to San Fran Nan? She and "sane" aren't generally in the same room.
-
Have you ever listened to San Fran Nan?
I do everything I can to avoid doing so.
She and "sane" aren't generally in the same room.
No argument from me. As I said above,
I don't think she's ever said a single word that I agree with.
-
How could any sane person possibly think that's a sane idea?
The pigs:
There was, as Squealer was never tired of explaining, endless work in the supervision and organisation of the farm. Much of this work was of a kind that the other animals were too ignorant to understand. For example, Squealer told them that the pigs had to expend enormous labours every day upon mysterious things called ' files', 'reports', 'minutes', and 'memoranda'. These were large sheets of paper which had to be closely covered with writing, and as soon as they were so covered, they were burnt in the furnace.
This was of the highest importance for the welfare of the farm, Squealer said.
Just finished reading Animal Farm again.
-
FrostCat said:
Have you ever listened to San Fran Nan?I do everything I can to avoid doing so.
FrostCat said:
She and "sane" aren't generally in the same room.No argument from me. As I said above,
HardwareGeek said:
I don't think she's ever said a single word that I agree with.I was, admittedly, deliberately being a trifle obscure. A potentially useful definition of "sane" is "doesn't think this is a good idea."
-
A potentially useful definition of "sane" is "doesn't think this is a good idea."
+S Would like again
-
The bill itself was enormous. Like 2,000 pages big. And that was just the start. Since its passage, the Dept of Health and Human Services (and others, but mostly them) has put out tens of thousands of pages of regulations. Because really the law was a vehicle to give the executive branch power to define lots and lots of stuff.
Truly monsterous and stupid and contradictory law.
If memory serves, it was what it was possible to get past Congress. (The Clintons tried back in the '90s and failed: getting any movement is an achievement.) It certainly needs improving still though, but that'll be hard to do.
The basic problem is that the fraction of your GDP that goes on healthcare is crazy high (much of that money would be better spent elsewhere) and yet the outcomes you get for all that expenditure are distinctly less than stellar. It's a great indication that the system is broken, and someone somewhere (probably many someones) is making a lot out of it without providing any real value at all. Shaking things up heavily would help a lot, but that basically means destroying quite a few people's livelihoods (including many people who are good lobbying) so getting there in one step is unlikely. You've got to break the back of Big Healthcare. (Is that a term? It is now!) It's going to be painful, and quintuply so when different parts of Congress are so terrible at compromise.
The rest of the world isn't perfect, but the US has things most thoroughly fucked up. “Expensive but meh” isn't a great place to be.
If you compare with the rest of the G7, the US has distinctly mediocre outcomes from healthcare overall, yet spends at least twice as large a fraction of GDP as the next country down, and they are (probably) worrying about their costs spiralling out of control. (I forget which country that is, FWIW.) Alas, that sort of analysis doesn't say how to fix things, just that shit's well and truly fucked. (I'm not entirely happy with a %-of-GDP measure, but it at least avoids problems with population differences, currency differences or inflation. Some of those technical-statistical things ought to actually act in the US's favour here, but if anything that just points to things being more fucked.)
-
How could any sane person possibly think that's a sane idea?
Fucking details. It's enough to have good intentions.
Filed Under: there's a thread for that
-
The basic problem is that the fraction of your GDP that goes on healthcare is crazy high (much of that money would be better spent elsewhere) and yet the outcomes you get for all that expenditure are distinctly less than stellar.
That's fucking bullshit. What makes you think our outcomes aren't great? OK, maybe not "stellar." But that seems like an unrealistic standard. We have fucking awesome outcomes. Don't even start to mention life expectancy you pussy. You guys are fucking stay at home retards relatively speaking. Our "lower" life expectancy is not due to our health care system.
All that said, our health care finance system is TRWTF.
If you compare with the rest of the G7, the US has distinctly mediocre outcomes from healthcare overall, yet spends at least twice as large a fraction of GDP as the next country down, and they are (probably) worrying about their costs spiralling out of control.
Yeah, I think this is bullshit too. Some of this is the fact that other countries effectively have an extortion racket with respect to pharmaceuticals. "Allow us to enforce bullshit price controls or we'll ignore your fucking patents." So most of the rest of the world free rides on our subsidies for drugs.
We also have a heterogeneous demographic like you guys cannot fucking believe. Even so, if you look at ethnicities, our populations do better than they do in their native countries. China and India are a lot bigger, but they don't have the diversity that we do (you kind of addressed this, but not enough motherfucker).
Some of those technical-statistical things ought to actually act in the US's favour here, but if anything that just points to things being more fucked.
We are very fucked. The only thing that has kept us afloat the last few years is that we aren't quite as fucked as you guys, though.
Filed Under: BAC is a barrier to typing
-
The basic problem is that the fraction of your GDP that goes on healthcare is crazy high [...] You've got to break the back of Big Healthcare.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. There are a number of options that work everywhere else, but government won't try them.
Interesting tidbit for you: medical things that aren't covered by insurance have dropped continuously, just like in every other industry. Think about why that might be.
-
-
boomzilla said:
So most of the rest of the world free rides on our subsidies for drugs.QFT
QQFT. And also, that's one of the reasons American medical costs are so high. I'd LOVE to see a pharm company come out with a drug that was somehow uncopyable, at least for a few years. Fuck you, Zimbabwe[1], pay up or go without.
[1] Just to pick a country at random. I don't have anything particular against them.
-
Interesting tidbit for you: medical things that aren't covered by insurance have dropped continuously, just like in every other industry. Think about why that might be.
QTFMFT
-
Most people don't realize that pharma and medical instrument companies dump nearly a billion dollars in research, testing, and approval per product ( the FDA requires specific, expensive protocols). The patents are only enforceable for 20 yrs from time of the patent grant, so in order to protect their IP, they need to apply very early in the research stage. By the time the product is approved to market, the average patent has between 5-10 yrs left for the company to recoup the investment and make a profit to be able to find other products (before others jump in, due to patent expiration, and make money on what was just put on the market) and pay their bills and investors.
Most of the world has price caps on medical supplies, drugs, and equipment, that are proscribed by the governments and are substantially below a decent GP margin. That's why our costs here in the US are so abysmally high.
TANSTAAFL—the laws of physics apply even to economics, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE ALWAYS PAYS. If it's not you, you're a freeloader or charity recipient.
-
BTW if you disagree with that first quote, you should consider what the unemployment rates for young people is in the US for the last few years.
So it's not that entry-level jobs are being outsourced or automated out of existence, or that the educational system doesn't do a very good job of producing graduates with marketable skills, or that the country was still recovering from a Great Recession?
Anyone who doesn't believe this law is awful is willfully ignorant IMO.
As a young worker, I've already lost my health insurance TWICE due to ObamaCare and all indicators are that I will lose it again at the end of the year. And I strongly suspect that my layoff last year was influenced by ObamaCare since my department was new and only marginally-profitable as a result, and laying off my department put the company size back down into the small-business category where ObamaCare supposedly has less of an impact.
It's got quite a few warts, but it makes a few steps in the right direction. I hope that doesn't mean I'm willfully ignorant.
It sucks that you've lost your insurance, but why are you directing your ire at the law and not at the company that threw you on the street to save a few bucks?
Disclaimer: My insurance coverage and premiums have pretty much stayed the same before and after passage of the PPACA, so maybe I'm biased.
Except it is about imposing penalties on those who don't buy health insurance.
That's necessary to prevent adverse selection in the market. It's the same principle as car insurance. And yes, while driving is a privilege, so is using the ER.
You're right, but it doesn't matter. You're arguing with a straw man, and straw men don't care about corn, only crows.
FTFY.
Also, I'm sure no conservative has ever advocated legislation to pay lip service to an issue.
The bill itself was enormous. Like 2,000 pages big.
That's what, within an order of magnitude or two of our tax code? Legislation is sausage-making. Every time a big bill goes in, everyone has to cram their riders onto it. That's just the nature of the beast. Legislators are pedantic dickweeds that have to cover every possible angle while pandering to their constituencies and sponsors. I'm sure the ancient Greeks and Romans had similar problems.
My favorite part:
We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.
This shouldn't be news. It's been established for quite a while that legislators don't read the laws they pass. Haven't you watched Fahrenheit 9/11?
The authors by definition know what's in the bill. That no one in Congress did should tell you something about the authors.
This just in: big money wields big political power. More at 11.
This, full stop, is where you're wrong. When government gets into the act, you wind up first with shit like a light bulb ban, and then, when the peasants complain, instead of just repealing the ban, some crazy new legislation that makes things even worse.
So regulation is bad? Does that mean lack of regulation is good? Should we all make a pilgrimage to Somalia to join High Priestess Ayn Rand?
-
I went to an ER with chest pains a few years ago. Spent six hours there (no waiting when you got severe chest pain!) on an EKG machine, many blood tests, doctors and nurses everywhere. Walked out in the morning, cost to me: Nothing. Civilisation, folks. Try it some time.
-
From what I understand about the US system, there are two main problems:
- costs are out of control. Vox recently published a study that a simple blood test can cost from $100 to $10.000, which is totally redicolous. Germany, my country of origin, has one of the most expensive health care systems in europe. but even that is only half or so of your costs.
- You are not getting a lot of bang for all the bucks: you average life expectancy is lower and there is not enough prevention, because it costs money. Reasons (as I understand): Too much healthcare in some cases, where doctors are doing every possible test just to make money and cover themselfes from lawsuits. And not enough healthcare because the costs are disturbingly high for uninsured people. Obamacare tries to fix the latter problem, but I guess that there would have to be a lot of other reforms to resuce the ship.
Personally, I really like the system from Shanghai(?): Everyone pays into a medical care fund and can spend that money on medical procedures. If you are chronically ill, are state founded subsidy will kick in. This forces people to think about their medical spending, and keeps prices down because people have an incentive to get the best care for the least money.
-
Yeah, I think this is bullshit too. Some of this is the fact that other countries effectively have an extortion racket with respect to pharmaceuticals. "Allow us to enforce bullshit price controls or we'll ignore your fucking patents." So most of the rest of the world free rides on our subsidies for drugs.
We also have a heterogeneous demographic like you guys cannot fucking believe. Even so, if you look at
As for the quality of HC: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/ . The problematic think about the US healthcare is that it is quite good at the top, but it's quality is dropping fast if you are not a millionaire.
As to for the quote: Germany is extorted by pharmaceuticals, not the other way aroud - our pcies are 50% above the next european country. And we are still better and cheaper than the US system.
As for the ignoring the patents stuff: that happens in developing countries, whose health system is not really comparable to first world countries. If you look at first world countries, the US still sucks, sorry.
-
expensive protocols
Hmmm. Who profits from them?
Too much healthcare in some cases, where doctors are doing every possible test just to make money
When I was younger and more naieve I bought Theme Hospital and could never figure out why you had to play the game that way in order to win, rather than minimise the
treatmentsdiagnosis and get the patients out the door ASAP.Think I've figured it out now...
-
That's what, within an order of magnitude or two of our tax code?
Congratulations on possibly the worst defense of the bill, ever.
Every time a big bill goes in, everyone has to cram their riders onto it. That's just the nature of the beast.
That didn't happen here. They couldn't even read what was in it, let alone propose amendments or anything.
Legislators are pedantic dickweeds that have to cover every possible angle while pandering to their constituencies and sponsors. I'm sure the ancient Greeks and Romans had similar problems.
If only they actually were pedantic dickweeds. Instead, they write relatively vague laws and delegate the focusing and what not to the executive branch. It's fire and forget lawmaking without any effective oversight on what happens after they hand off responsibility.
-
You are not getting a lot of bang for all the bucks: you average life expectancy is lower and there is not enough prevention, because it costs money.
This is bad reasoning. It's been addressed in a zillion places...though probably only a couple so far in Discourse.
Obamacare tries to fix the latter problem,
It might be fair to say that it was the intention of Obamacare's authors that the law should alleviate that problem, but the law is a ass, and I'm not convinced that the authors weren't just trying to sabotage the system to justify a government takeover. Some of the people involved in the drafting and concepts have said as much.
-
@M_Adams said:
expensive protocols
Hmmm. Who profits from them?
Just a SWAG, but probably some Senator or Representative's K street butt-boy asslicker...
Welcome to the world of pressure group warfare ( or as some call it, lobbying ).
