OT: Health care struck down

Page 11 of 16  
wrote:

so when the stock price collapses
uh...what happens to the dividend?

which is built to cover the investment losses of the insurance companies. not my contention...this is the analysis of gerald ford's former commissioner of insurance
The large

yep. and yet total malpractice costs are about 1.5% of all healthcare costs

let's assume that ALL of what you say is right. let's do the numbers
the RIGHT contends that ALL of the difference in our healthcare costs, compared to other countries, is due to malpractice costs
but our costs are about 70% higher than other countries. but total MALPRACTICE costs are about 1.5% of healthcare costs
the numbers simply do not support the right wing contention.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bpuharic wrote:

Er, nothing. Dividends depend on profit and profit is not significantly contingent on stock price. There may be SOME connection, for example if the stock price falls for reasons unconnected to the underlying business, the corporation may have to pay a higher interest rate to borrow money, but that's just so much noise on the balance sheet; dividends remain largely unaffected.
Recently BP's stock price fell in the ditch due to the Gulf oil spill (down 40%)*. Their dividends were suspended for two or three quarters, principally for political reasons, but the quarterly dividends resumed in February of this year.

I've never heard that and I certainly don't believe it to be true. Perhaps you could provide an example of someone taking that position?

Nor have I heard that our costs are 70% higher than other countries. I could believe our costs are that much higher compared to, oh, Zimbabwe, but in general? I doubt it. I could be persuaded otherwise by a suitable reference.
-------- * See http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=BP.L&a=0&b=1&c 03&d=1&e=7&f 11&g=d&zf&y2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What I have always hated about statistics and comparisons based on statistics is their lack of any attempt to actually compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges or make even a small effort toward determining why differences exist. Take for example that simple comparison of the cost of drugs in the US to the cost of drugs in Canada. Canada sets the price for drugs in Canada, not the providers. If those prices are not enough to return a fair value to the drug companies they must look elsewhere to make up the difference. Simple solution, add another penny or two onto the price in the US. Same if they don't turn a profit in GB or anywhere else, make it up where you can. And it must be made up or the Drug Company will not remain in business long enough to bring the next miracle drug to market.
That is just one of the many different factors that affect the price of healthcare in the US. Yes, malpractice insurance and everything associated with malpractice add to the costs but that alone would not account for the higher cost, it is only one of many factors. Government regulations are also a major factor that adds significantly to the total cost but little to the total quality. The government always seem much more concerned about paperwork than about the real quality of care issues. Did you dot your "i" and cross your "t" correctly and within the alloted time frame. We were written up because the Medical Director had not signed off on the chart format within the last 12 months even though it hadn't changed in the last five years. The burro-craps don't care about anything except the mass and weight of your documentation. Healthcare in this country isn't about caring for people, its about filling out forms to document your every breath while treating someone. On a trip to the emergency room with my mother-in-law recently following a fall the doctor spent about 5 minutes examining her and 15 minutes on the computer completing the documentation. He had an assistant that also documented everything that he did. The RN spend almost an hour at the terminal updating records. Oh, and in that three hour trip she received an MRI to her head which had a bump that looked like an embeded baseball and all the blood work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:11:39 -0800 (PST), BobR

which is an argument for socialized medicine to set prices. here in the US our govt FORBIDS the govt to negotiate for best or fixed prices.
, not the

gee and yet drug companies continue to sell in canada. go figure.

i agree. malpractice is a relatively minor cost

now THIS argument makes no sense
a SOCIALIZED MEDICAL system is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT GOVERNMENT REGULATED.
yet they are more efficent than ours is.
. The government

and insurance companies, of course are not. they have only our best interests in mind. like denying us coverage for pre existing conditions
Did you dot your "i" and cross your "t"

cliche after cliche...
. Healthcare in this country isn't

thats free enterprise for you!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Damn, you take a shit and it's an argument for socialized medicine.

Yep, and if they didn't the prices would be a whole lot higher that they are now. Now I am not going to give you a lesson in the economics of production, you clearly wouldn't understand.

No, you don't agree and that is not what I said moron. It is more than a minor cost but is one of many costs.

To you, with your head firmly buried, it probably wouldn't. The massive number of regulations and the reporting requirements for showing compliance with those regulations adds billions to the annual cost of healthcare.
"Students of regulation have known for decades that the burden of regulation on the U.S. economy is sizable, with the latest figures suggesting this cost may approach $1 trillion in 2004. Surprisingly, given that the health industry is often viewed as among the most heavily regulated sectors of the U.S. economy, previous estimates generally have ignored the cost of regulating health care services."
A far more accurate bottom-up approach suggests that the total cost of health services regulation exceeds $339.2 billion. This figure takes into account regulation of health facilities, health professionals, health insurance, drugs and medical devices, and the medical tort system, including the costs of defensive medicine.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2466

Don't confuse regulated with controlled.

MORE BULLSHIT!

Personally I hate insurance companies, all of them and all forms of insurance but I have found them to be a necessary evil that I trust no more and no less than the government. BUT and this is the important part, I can chose to change my insurance company if not happy with the service but I can't change my government.

Damn right I did.

Well, you won't listen to facts, you won't do any research for yourself so what was left but a cliche or two?

And I will take it over socialism any and every day of the week.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:02:27 -0800 (PST), BobR

hey i cant help it if you keep wrecking your case.

HAHAAH they lose money in canada but they make it up in volume!!
HAHAHAHA

gee and you cant tell us HOW much of a cost it is. but it's the BOGEYMAN...

and yet, the part you deleted was this
a SOCIALIZED system is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT GOVT REGULATED
AND it's MORE EFFICIENT
no WONDER you deleted what i said! it DESTROYS your postion!

a half assed analysis in search of a half assed ideology
the BALANCED view is to look at COST BENEFIT
for example...tom coburn, MD, a right wing nut is the senator from OK. he's fanatically PRO LIFE EXCEPT
when it comes to regulating the food industry. he says it would cost food producers 1.4 billion a year
BUT the COST of food borne illnesses is DEATH and ILLNESS amounting to TENS OFBILLIONS each year
so the regulations would COST 1.4 billion and
SAVE LIVES AND TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
to right wing fanatics, that means no regulation!

yeah. i guess there's no govt interference in SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AT ALL
right??
hell..ANOTHER argument for SOCIALIZED medicine!! you keep telling us that socialized medicine has NO govt regulation!

HAHAHAHA so there's no regulation in a socialized medical system??
that what you're saying??

proof?
care to cite ANY evidence?

and you can do no such thing. go ahead. tell your employer you want to change health insurance companies
see how long it takes them to stop laughing

and you'll take it in spite of the evidence
yes, i know. that's what being right wing is all about
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bpuharic wrote:

You are way too dumb for me to even attempt to educate and you refuse to even look at anything that counters your shit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:36:23 -0800 (PST), BobR

now let's see. i brought up cost/benefit analysis...a tool used by the conservative judge richard posner to make decisions, from a conservative viewpoint, about law
and you respond with the time honored method of right wingers everywhere:
you dodged the issue
uh...OK
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
BobR wrote:

Interestingly, while most patent drugs are significantly cheaper in Canada, most generic drugs cost a bit more.
The drug-price war is one of mutually-assured destruction. Here's how it works:
Pharma introduces a new drug and prices it at $15/tablet, wholesale. Canada says it will pay $2/tablet. Pharma says "no, we insist on $15" Canada says take the $2 or we'll abrogate the intellectual property treaty and make the drug locally Pharma says we have the political clout to have the U.S. retaliate by cutting wheat imports Canada says we'll cut off your oil
Pharma and Canada compromise on $3/tablet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know that was not too far from the truth. That is very similar to the way the hospitals and insurance companies work when determining reimbursement rates. There is always some department within the hospital organization that takes a hit while another benefits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

really? companies continue to pay dividends when prices collapse?
bet they dont.
Dividends depend on profit and profit is not significantly

gee. what happens to profit when stock prices collapse?

ah. suspended. i used to work for ATT. their stock once sold for $55 a share
10 years ago they had a reverse split to get the price back up over a dollar
they hadnt paid a dividend in years

did you read the thread? did you see ANY explanation offered BEYOND malpractice?
you DO know how to read, right?

so you dont read much. here you go:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/01/us-healthcare-costs-sb-idUSTRE5504Z320090601
UNITED STATES: 15.9 pct of GDP, $6,657 per capita
CANADA: 9.7 pct of GDP, $3,430 per capita
there's a 6% difference right there...about 60%
ISRAEL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $1,533 per capita
that's a difference of 8% or 100% difference
would you like me to continue?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bpuharic wrote:

AT&T has paid a dividend every quarter since 1986 (that's as far back as the chart allows). The dividend has ranged from $1.74/quarter to ten cents, but it has always been there (currently it's about forty cents). http://www.att.com/gen/investor-relations?pidV75
Since 1984, AT&T stock has ranged from almost $70/share to about $25/share. It has never been as low as a dollar. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=T&a &b&c84&d&e=8&f 11&g=m&zf&y2
AT&T's last stock split was in March 1998. At that time, they gave two shares of the new stock for one of the old. There was one other: a 2:1 split in 1993. There is no notation of a reverse split in the last twenty-five years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

not quite a dollar. but in that range.
your own reference. compare the adjusted stock prices on feb 1 1989 to feb 1 2011
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bpuharic wrote:

Twenty-five dollars is in "the range" of your purported less than a dollar? It's not even an order of magnitude "in the range." And your claimed reverse split is no where to be found either. These bizarro claims on AT&T stock call into question all the other claims you've made, including that you once actually worked for AT&T (I'll grant you may have used a telephone instrument a decade ago).

Feb 1, 1989 - $43.63 Feb 1, 2011 - $111.64 (after two 2:1 stock splits in the interim)
That is, one share of stock purchased in 1989 for $44 would be worth $112 today.
Your point, then, is exactly what? And what does the price then and now have to do with your assertion that: a) AT&T stock was once less than a dollar or b) Ten years ago there was a reverse 1:2 stock split?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

do you see the last column? it's 'adjusted selling price', which accounts for SPLITS and DIVIDENDS...prices was about $3

now THAT is correct. my memory was wrong and i was in error.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But more importantly, you would now have four shares after the splits. So your $43.63 investment would be worth $446.56.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True to a limited view but consider that without the investments and the profits from those investments by the insurance companies the cost of Health and other insurance would be an order of magnatude higher.

Just bullshit libturd talking point.

Doctors are humans and unlike perfect people like you, they do make mistakes. I wonder if you were subject to a malpractice lawsuit for every mistake you have made and even subject to a lawsuit if you didn't make a mistake but the outcome wasn't what someone expected if you would still think the same way. There doesn't have to be any fault by anyone for there to be a settlement and settlement or not if there is a suit the doctor is going to end up paying huge additional fees for insurance.

NO it sure wouldn't.

Your ignorance is showing. If they LIVE there they would have plates for the state where they live.

Yes they do, and in some cases they even get good care. In other cases though they get butchered and don't have any recourse for damages or follow-up care. I compare it to the offshoring of all of our other jobs to the lowest bidder. You may get quality goods or you may get a knock-off product that doesn't quite live up to your standards or expectations but what the hell....it was really really cheap.
If you are a gambler and enjoy rolling the dice and don't mind the occasional snake-eyes then by all means go for it. I will send flowers...naw to hell with it, you gambled and lost...tough shit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:26:21 -0800 (PST), BobR

2 problems with that:
1. this is not true for other nations that DONT have a 'free enterprise' system
2. when they LOSE they dont tell us they've lost. they,and their allies on the right, assert the need for 'tort reform' without telling us the background on their case

i agree. but the fact is, according to wikipedia, 73% of all settled suits involve provable errors. of those WITHOUT provable errors, 72% of THOSE were dismissed. so it seems there's no rush to the bank.
and, again, there's no proof that our system of malpractice leads to higher costs...
IN FACT...if THIS is the argument, it's an argument for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
if OTHER countries drive down the cost of medicine by socialized medicine which elmiminates lawsuits AND does NOT compromise care, then the logic is to go to a socialized system. that would AUTOMATICALLY produce tort reform

hmmm then why arent there large numbers of canadians getting care in PA? are florida doctors so much superior to doctors at, say, harvard?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those nations simply return to the taxpayer for more and more money. There isn't a free ride anywhere. Something has to pay and ultimately it falls back on the consumer.

More BS. Its not the insurance companies pushing for tort reform, its the care givers who have to write the checks and pass the costs on.

I don't care much for anything wikipedia has to say but since you seem to think they have all the answers how about just one small quote from them:
Physician advocacy groups say 60% of liability claims against doctors are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed without payment. However even those cases have a price, costing an average of more than $22,000 to defend in 2008 ($18,000 in 2007). Physicians are found not negligent in over 90% of cases that go to trial - yet more than $110,000 (2008 estimate, $100,000 in 2007) per case is spent defending those claims. [17]
Malpractice has both direct and indirect costs, including "defensive medicine." According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year. Studies place the direct and indirect costs of malpractice between 5% and 10% of total U.S. medical costs, as described below:[20]
"About 10 percent of the cost of medical services is linked to malpractice lawsuits and more intensive diagnostic testing due to defensive medicine, according to a January 2006 report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for the insurers group Americas Health Insurance Plans. The figures were taken from a March 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that estimated the direct cost of medical malpractice was 2 percent of the nations health-care spending and said defensive medical practices accounted for 5 percent to 9 percent of the overall expense."

What? You don't believe your own source. There is plenty of proof but you have decided to either not look for it or ignore it entirely.

More Bullshit.

They aren't driving down the costs at all, they are spreading the costs and lowering the quality by rationing care. Do some damn research on what is really going on in the ideal countries that you so love.

I suspect they are but unless you are spending time around those facilities you wouldn't know it and it is pretty clear you don't spend any real time anywhere close to healthcare.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:23:30 -0800 (PST), BobR

irrelevant. money is fungible. it doesnt matter if it's the govt or the insurance company asking for money
the fact is we pay a bigger portion of our GDP for healthcare. THAT is the measurement

and our free enterprise system costs more than others

hmmm...seems you need an exercise in BS recognition
it's the insurance companies getting more money. they get their money. they dont care whether there's tort reform or not. it's a useful tool for them to hide their losses, though

really? how's our economy doing nowadays? we healthy? wall street DIDNT need a bailout last year right?

and STILLthis comes to about 1.5% of all medical costs
spin it whichever way you want
it's not a big factor in medical costs

except our medical costs are SEVENTY PERCENT higher than other, socialized mediicine societies.
keep working on it.

wrong. i said ABOVE taht i'm fully willing to ACCEPT YOUR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
EVEN IF IT"S TEN PERCENT, this does NOT explain why our costs are 40-70% higher than OTHER industrialized countries.
and that's ACCEPTING YOUR FIGURES

ah. a well reasoned argument. uh huh

you know, THIS argument makes me wonder what the HELL you guys are drinking
NEWSFLASH: WE RATION CARE
let me repeat this:
WE RATION CARE.
we do so on price. we do so by denying coverage to millions
WE RATION CARE
repeat those words to yourself because that's a FACT
if you're 95 and have 3 days to live, you can get the best medical attention to extend your life by 3 hours
if you're the kid of teh working poor, you die because you dont have medical insurance

ah. you suspect.
as to healthcare....
ummm i was a student nurse
and i am now a volunteer 1st responder with our local ALS ambulance corp...yesterday helped on my first cardiac arrest
but...you're more than welcome to make up any story that makes you feel comfortable
you seem pretty immune to evidence
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.