John Stossel - Insurance, Health Care, Government, and Rising Prices

depends =P

Actually the problems got much worse when deregulation fever stopped the policing of nearly everything, and the Gang Of Pirates applied the "hire Al Capone to run ATF" theory of Government where they did not sell the departments to the criminals outright.

It is the Antisocialists that have unsocialized the entire culture that has led us to this fine mess, and more of the same will not fix it.

If you look back up a few comments to the gapminder note you will see that you can play with hundreds of parameters and see what has worked and what has not and even when a country has dramatically changed policy how it made a dramatic change in progress for better or worse. look for such kinks first and then look up the history for the reason. The ultimate conclusions are inescapable.

That was most definately a factor, but hardly the beginning... overall if business people, not doctors ruined healthcare, are bureaucrats going to do any better???

Bureaucrats are indeed the problem. But the system that bus a bureaucrat between you and your doctor on every decision is the one we have. The best systems have no bureaucrats but the doctors themselves, and no higher priority but the health of the patient. That is what the systems at the best performance in the Gapminder graph shows.

The US does as good as it does because they do spend oodles of money, those who spend less in the same sort of system are literally off the chart worse.

Bureaucrats are not in the picture, it is the "buisness, not practice" attitude within healthcare today that causes the bulk of the problems..... Govt run will put Bureaucrats in the picture and make it worse.....

ROFL ....YUP

Not sure how a born-again neocon picture plays a part in a libertarian posting....but whatever. I agree with you, the republicans are horrible and backed by heavy insurance lobbyists. That is why it will take an injection of Liberty ideals and a market economy to drain the propped up malinvestment that has been built up around us today. We should not let the neoconservatives have another term, at least support the libertarians takeover of the republican party. For goodness sakes, do you want more of the neocons in power? Everytime you compare the libertarians to neocons you are falsely portraying the political scene. This pic really has nothing to do with the Keynesian versus libertarian debate.

thank you for the clarification. sorry, I don't mean to confuse the issue. I just found these somewhat humorous and thought you or others might as well. I'll attempt to be a little more on topic the next time I randomly post ;P (JK!)

ha....

they'd get massive amount of paper work would they not?

There is already a massive amount of paperwork, and more still as a doctors assistant has to argue with an Insurance Bureaucrat over every decision by the doctor.

In Government systems or Medicare the doctor's decision decides so much less red tape. No assistant to argue and only a generic oversight to keep an eye out for systemic fraud.
So yes very much cheaper. See the gapminder link below to see how that plays out over all countries.

We already have coercive monopolies, the difference is that they are profiteering and unaccountable and cannot make a profit except by denying service. It would be as if the Gas company charges you all year for gas to heat your house and then shut it off at any cold snap because they would actually have to purchase the gas they provided.

Your understanding of economics or government is obviously less than an average 5th grader, please learn before showing so much ignorance. A smattering of Logic study would be of benefit to you as well. You have the whole Internet to learn from try http://freedem.blog.googlepages.com/home for a basic start.

Okay Freedem, you say one thing I said and then go on an off subject rant about how I should study more. Can you really not see how I was already mentioning coercive monopolies through government regulation that have taken a hold of our healthcare over the last 6 decades?!? Did you really ignore that whole part where I talk about economic fascism (the merging between big business and big government) YOU are clueless my friend, to think that we liberty lovers support these insurance companies and secondly, for believing that more government (status quo) is going to solve the problem. You don't even understand what we are talking about. For now, sit down and listen to those outside your political realm of oligopolization. You can't even see how you support this current system with your revisionist history. You think what we have is free market?!?!? Get real, and get to studying yourself....

I posted the reality of the results in graphs below

And Daily Show is the same.

You like that show?

How about that Rachel show? Same with her as well.

Please....stop making a distinction as if you watch something better.

Healthcare already is a right as far as you have the right to pay for whatever healthcare you can afford. The thing is that your right to healthcare doesn't trump my right to the fruit of my labor.

Having said that, I do think that everyone should have access to the privilege of good healthcare that is partially subsidized by the greater whole. But I also believe that this should be administered through various charity organizations via voluntary donations and not through the government via forced participation.

Although, as we know, the "super wealthy" in this country never donate to charity or set up philanthropic organizations with the extra wealth they don't need/want.

Just because the government writes a law does not mean something will come true. Governments create price distortions which have led to shortages, price increases, while they have also backed up big insurance companies with protectionism and higher barriers to entry into a competitive market. Just because you say it is a right does not mean it is going to happen through centralized coercive monopolies. I too want the most people to get the best healthcare, but that will never happen under statism, as the last 60 years of government regulation on healthcare has proven. Just look at social security, bankrupt and in debt.....and the babyboomers are about to hit. Government does nothing productive, it's whole philosophy is based on consumption. Government has already ruined healthcare in the disguise of free markets and now it is trying to gain more power. If you want more people to have more healthcare, quit ignoring economics and realize how we got here.

http://www.lcurve.org/

I recall that in Argentina recently your Atlas Shrugged Scenario actually happened. The owner just shut the gates and left. The Workers came and broke in and just continued as usual electing their own supervisors each by the group they oversaw. Since those who elected them also set the wages management salaries were little if at all above worker salaries.

With the management burden removed the company made tremendous profits so the owner returned and wanted his company back. The workers offered fair value at what the company was worth (mired in debt that was paid off) at the time they picked it up out of the garbage.

After much fighting through the courts "Atlas" was paid off and the workers who were supporting him as a tremendous burden are like a runner who has shed a hundred pounds of training weights for the real race.

If David Chandler wrote that, god bless him. Thanks Freedem:

Our economy produces tremendous wealth but it also produces tremendous poverty. Sure, some people can be lazy, but when large numbers of hard working people live in poverty and the middle class is shrinking, it is a systemic, not an individual problem. There is plenty to go around, but it doesn't adequately go around. It goes to the top, and leaves the masses to fight over the crumbs. (If you are mathematically inclined, check out a recent study of the income distribution that identifies two distinct income classes in the US with different mathematical bahavior.) True, it has been this way through the ages, but that doesn't mean we should be satisfied with such a system. I believe we can do better.

Some doctors and lawyers and professional people, with incomes over a hundred thousand dollars may feel "rich". They may have nicer homes and cars, and they may have attitudes that separate them from the masses. But they still must work for a living and are primarily consumers of their earnings. Whether they recognize it or not, they actually have more in common with the people at the bottom than they do with the people in the top 1/2%.

The horizontal spike has the votes. The vertical spike has the money. Who wins, when it comes to electoral politics? Who has influence? Whose interests are being represented in Washington? Can democracy meaningfully exist where the distribution of wealth, and thus the distribution of power, is this concentrated?...

And if Bill Gates walks into a bar the average salary in the bar goes up ten thousand fold... making stupid arguments to claim brilliance above others just proves the contrary.

Just because you need a log scale to get all the salaries on the page does not change the linear reality or where half of the real money line is.

the math of what happens to a society when just the tips at each end are clipped off as they were 60 years ago, is that the total volume under the curve goes way up especially in the middle ranges.

""you are totally wrong, but no data i could provide or no theories or practice or experience of any society or economy would EVER convince you how completely wrong that "plan" is.""

A bit of projection is that? The book The Long Tail laid out the math, what he is looking for and what the L-curve is looking at are different but the math is the same and the curves are the same.

The Experiment has been tried in much of Europe and less so in the US, but in both cases the results are as I pointed out very successful, and the total value increases.

The reverse experiment has also been tried on many occasions and the results are usually referred to as "Third World", though the experiment has not made the US to that state yet, it is headed in that direction

You might try the Gapminder link http://bit.ly/lifcht and play around with all the data. You might surprise yourself and learn something

A background in Mechanical engineering might explain the density you are showing. Social and organic systems are not nearly so simple. The bell curve died for most applications the day someone gave Dr. Mandelbrot unlimited computer time. 40 years on the news has not gotten out in some circles.

You can indeed create formulas that when plotted against data produce straight lines. All that tells you is how much your formula predicts the data. Geometric curves are not made linear because you use logarithmic graph paper to show them, any more than things are made bigger by using a magnifier. They look different but are still the same.

That you also have no clue about global climate forces only underlines the general cluelessness.

-ask Mandelbrot if fractals can do that._
That was actually one of the points he made in his book, and gave illustrations and stuff.

There have been many surprises, specifically "hundred year" floods etc. Yet the data is ignored for the prediction.

Just because the math is pretty, such derived statistics about individual events cannot be so isolated, and cannot be predicted. On the other hand trends and forces can be studied and produce good general results, but even that is a range and may be missing key data.

Predicting general warming based on CO2 is one thing, but knowing when H2S or methane might have catastrophic release in frozen solids is something else.

However when RWAs recognize that they are being played by folk sucking billions, Global warning will be suddenly solved by Hell freezing over.

He said they pay their share...not that they pay the right amount via the law.

He knows they didn't and don't pay via the law as everyone else does.

I believe that It was Bush that eliminated estate taxes. Warren Buffet, & Bill Gates also have such trusts.

What point of your posting does this cover?

Nothing is free, but many things suck up money that provide no value.

Right now just what the Government spends overall on health care divided by the total population is about equal to the same statistic in many other countries, except in our case it does not include any money paid to insurance companies, and the vast majority of Americans who do not recieve a dime in Government health care .

The difference is that in all those other countries every single person has lifetime health care, no bureaucrats, no profiteers, just every worker getting a just wage based on the merit of their work, and a system better by any measure than ours..

How would that person be any different than Beck?

He is targeting someone with little proof outside of bias and dislike and there are no one that is a democrat or liberal on his 'hit' list.

Jammerer you obviously have not paid much attention. to Stossel if nothing else. If Buzzflash did not do chapter and verse of Stossel's past activites as proof it is because they are little needed, and would take up more space than their computer has room for.

Google has more room and can provide an overview if one is necessary.

The fact that this site cannot be trusted because they only attack one side....doesn't make them more credible with more less creditable sites that flourish a Google.

Buzzflash and the Left generally are not more or less credible because of who they oppose, but because of how much they favor the truth as verifiable fact.

Buzzflash in particular has suffered because they pointed out problems first with Hillary, and later with Obama who have each moved to the right from earlier positions.They also refuse money from any corporation.

They and most of the left are not blind cheering sections but operate based on facts and evidence. This is why they are also harder to organize, because each thinks for themselves and that makes a very wide range.

The Right by contrast has direct Corporate input and controls, a published daily spin, little regard for reality, and willing to change basic values at head snapping speed as required.

The market is such that those most in need of health care can least afford it. If you are healthy all your life, at some time when you need to spend the most you will have the least ability to earn the cost, or negotiate the bill.

The reason Insurance exists at all is to Socialize the costs so people are not destroyed if they become vulnerable.

The reason that Insurance needs to be reformed or removed is that they are stealing the money,Taking it in when there is no claim, but dumping them as soon as they are actually needed.

Having a firefighting company come and put out your house on fire was not a "Right" in 1776 either but between the Chicago Fire and the rampant corruption that was the private firefighting system (see "Gangs of New York" movie) folks figured out that a public system was the most honest and cheapest system possible.

Likewise every other civilized democratic country has wrestled with this problem, and while the details vary all are Government managed because of tight controls on non-profit Insurance managers, or because the Government pays most or all the bills, or because the Government own the whole system and hires the doctors.

That last is the least expensive and the best outcomes but all cost very much less than our system and by any measure do a much better job. Like the Firefighters of old the corrupt that are literally bleeding us dry are trying every trick to put off the inevitable, but the logic of the honest systems will eventually drive us there, unless the current system drives us to ruin first.

The buying insurance across state lines may be a nice idea but when your state insurance commissioner can't prosecute an insurance company because they are based in another state your left holding the bag.

Health insurance across state lines would do the same thing as Credit Cards and banking across state lines. All the corporations make a bee line to whatever state promises them the greatest leeway to commit fraud and exploitation, and all the others would have no companies there at all.

Already in most places there is only one or two options and by redlining poorer or older areas so there are no doctors or hospitals in the area, they make the competition even less.
At least with a public Medicare style company there could be doctors available everywhere, and with less bureaucrats it would cost at least 30% less as well

extremes do not prove points.

I think that our taxes should pay for such cover of any one with a serious problem that is an emergency. Other than that...NO.

Nothing plusaf, you just stated what's wrong with the ambulance system everywhere else but Raleigh N.C.

plusaf, do you know a person named Jeff McLamb? He is a Raleigh EMT.

If one is just looking about and sees an Ad for an IPhone they can decide they want it and buy it if the price is right because aside from the price there is no downside. If they were free or paid for anyway nearly everyone would have one.

Medicine is not like that. If hip replacements were free and a person even needed one the pain alone would make them think twice about how much they needed it. If they were prepaid (as in Medicare) or even totally free, everyone would not be running out to get hip replacements, but only those who really needed them badly. The same is true about every other sort of Health Care

The market rules work opposite any sort of sane health care policy, and Stossel is a tool to try and state otherwise.

Your last line states it all....you don't like the other side therefore they can't have anything creditable to state.

So your entire post was pointless.

To bad your view is based on error. It is a FACT that every country with nationalized health care spends far less than the US. It is also a FACT that every one of those countries provides better care than the US.

Privatized health care means higher cost, less coverage, rationing, denial of service, all to create profits to enrich a very few.

---"even the MSM recently has include the fact that, even though we pay more in the US for "the same results," there is some proof that life expectancy AFTER DIAGNOSIS of an illness IS LONGER in the USD than in the countries you tout as examples."---

Another phony talking point from UHC's "independent" mouthpiece? I am sure several friends now dead because diagnosis was denied feel cold comfort in that thought. But it is illogical on its face, those diagnosed later die quicker, especially if never diagnosed till the last moment as any without Insurance are.

This is just another attempt to describe a situation not already screaming in the data available, and ask that that be refuted too. The broad outlines are irrefutable and desperately searching for an objection about half of a percent of cases or expenses is just noise.

whatever.

Everyone that speaks against what Kennedy wants you'll repeat his line he's said for ages.

First of all, the "bought and paid for by _______" argument is a weak and unfounded response. Which health insurance company bribed him? How much money was it? Lots of people share his viewpoint. Do the health insurance lobbyists bribe them, too? So what makes him different? At what point do people go from having a viewpoint about something to being in the back pockets of a large company? It's no different with any scientist who's research happens to contradict the theory of man-made global warming. If the results of their scientific research points to carbon dioxide being the main factor in driving global climate change, they're environmental heroes in the battle against greed. If their results were to say that carbon dioxide in general does not impact the atmosphere enough to cause any climate change, they were bribed by industries to say that.

As for the government option. Let's assume that it will be 30% cheaper for everyone across the board. Why is it so cheaper? It's not as simple as why you can get dish detergent cheaper at BJ's, Sam's, or Costco. Health care companies have millions of customers. That's not bulk enough? Everyone is also different, so you're not lumping 100 million clones into one health care plan. The problem with a government (and the VITAL difference between them and other health insurance companies) option is that they can operate at a loss for decades, and the government can force people at gunpoint to put more money into this failing system. Other companies can not keep up with it, and they will eventually fail.
You may be thinking, "Really? A company (even government) operating at a loss? That doesn't make sense, and it doesn't happen in the real world." Just look back at AT&T in the 80s. Even after they were deregulated as a "natural monopoly," they were found guilty of hurting the smaller businesses by operating at a loss to destroy competition because they simply had large enough lungs to hold their breath longer.
Corporations are held by the government to rules that the government is allowed to break. Obama will tell you that a government option creates competition just like FedEx, UPS, and the Postal Service. But even that example has fallacies. FedEx and UPS aren't allowed to compete with the postal service's 1st class mail. He even said that health care should be more like auto insurance. The problem here is that people do not have to drive cars. It's an option. Auto insurance companies aren't required to fix a car that was damaged before the person bought the premium, so where's the pre-existing condition clause in health care?

I like the "hold breath" statement. It's a good one.

Sean, look up social engineering and you may find out why people do not need to be "bought" to buy an idea.....