Cost-effective health care = MORE PROFIT!
If we can do that, we'll have an even better system.

wow that is a good read

Ive counted at least 3 times i have seen Health spelled wihtout an L

I think we all need to chip in and by Meg a new keyboard.

Looks like Meg was hungry...

(Heath bars are AMAZINGLY delicious.)

The current Republican health care proposals, and this includes Bernanke's statement is that we are paying too much for health care is because "someone else pays", so the way to fix that is make sure individuals pay more for health care so they shop around while looking for the hospital when they need catastrophic care. (catastrophic care is the biggest cost for health care).

The way to fix the high costs is to make you pay more!

@shoelace414: His statements are actually pretty balanced when I read them in full and mostly just list facts about the problem. He, unlike most Republicans who are talking about this, at least recognizes some of the diverse reasons that people don't have health insurance. But he also seems unwilling to make the jump to the possibility that eliminating private insurance altogether might be the best answer. At least he seems to recognize that we aren't getting our money's worth.

Well it make perfect sense from an economic standpoint. The more time you spend "shopping" for a cost-effective solution the more likely you are to either find a more cost effective solution or die. The burden of the system is minimized in either case. From a moral standpoint, the issue is much less clear, but it does make perfect economic sense.

Anyone else think that the picture was Bre'Tak from Stargate SG-1 at first?

the best way to reduce the costs of healthcare overall, is for AMERICANS TO STOP BEING SO FAT AND LAZY

let's face it, we created this problem. we're a nation full of fat, lazy, smoking, drinking, fast food eating couch potatoes, and the country thinks we should demand a magic pill to cure it all

as long as we allow people those freedoms (which i think we should), then don't expect me to pay for it for someone who made those choices.

I have enough money in my trust fund to have health care for life. I think if poor people didn't have children our problems would be solved much quicker.

@johnva: Compare our health care with the socialist health care all day and night. You may believe Europe's is better. Fine, I'll accept that. But I just got back from the DMV, and I know that OUR government could never pull it off to be cost effective. What a bunch of collective idiots. If you think our Government, can do it, with your best interests in mind, I want to smoke whatever it is you are smoking. Because all I see is profit and corruption out of our government.

@nedzeppelin: umm how about people who are fit, responsible, and lead healthy lives yet get stricken by cancer, or get their lives shattered by an accident (like spinal cord injuries, etc), or by some dumb luck born with a birth defect?

It's not like you care.

@PrestonBerryworth: At face-value your comment is extremely rude and, well, just plain dick.

But you have a small point, and that is, lots of people who can't afford kids, have kids. I know for myself, I won't have kids until I can afford to give them everything they need. I think the government should regulate when you are financially prepared to have kids.

That was a great read. It's important that people learn more about the preventable deaths that are happening at hospitals today due to medical error. These errors are a lot worse than people realize. And most of them are due to the fact that many hospitals are falling apart financially.

And if anything, this would make a decent argument that if we had more of idea of what exactly we were paying for our healthcare, then we would know if we really are getting our moneys worth or not and that seems to be Bernanke's key issue. Are we getting our moneys worth for what we're paying?

@ironchef: I'm young, muscular, and just plain gorgeous, and lately I've found that I have some medical 'issues'. So I definitely keep that in mind when I'm debating. But, I think what he means, is our risk pool is terrible and it ends up costing all of us more. Obviously there are people who always going to be a cost to the system, at no fault of their own.

How about not-for profit insurance companies?

Huh?

Anyone?

*crickets*

@PrestonBerryworth: better yet, lets round up the poor people and ship them to canada, get rid of them now instead of phasing them out gradually

@Viva La Volvo: @hypnotik_jello: No, this is about the care that Heath Ledger received. It didn't go to well, so we need Heath care reform.

@Bladefist: you think the government should regulate when you can and can't have kids??? when did you move here from China?

If only doctors and hospitals would require you to show your receipt on the way out the door, health care would be a lot more affordable. 28% of the cost of health care is shrinkage.

Seriously now... can we just start providing children with health care? It would be nice to include everyone, but while we bicker about the particulars of that, can we just start covering the kids? I know it costs money, but I can think of a few billions we are spending every month that might be put to better use. Or maybe I'm the only one who thinks its a shame that some toddler's course of cancer treatment has to be approved by some anonymous a suit in a cubicle.

@Bladefist: People who need to freeze their credit cards to prevent frivolous spending need to be sterilized.

@ Bladefist : It's too expensive to live, so I will just fade into the background and die. Life is for rich people anyway.

Health care is not expensive because people are fat and lazy. It's expensive because people (corporations) are greedy, plain and simple.
There are many, many diseases (and injuries) that occur not because of fatness and laziness, but because of living.
What's next, putting elderly people on an ice flow because they cost too much money to keep alive?

Shoot, now that I think about it, isn't that why America was founded? Rich people were stepping on the masses, so they came over here, to America, to try to build a nation that wasn't based upon the amount of money you had.

@worksintheory: blue cross blue shield. :) I'd google before you asked questions like that.

@HIV 2 Elway: lol, nice work.

@ThinkerTDM: Wow never heard that part of the argument before. Life changing.

@nedzeppelin: Maybe fixing fat "lazy" Americans might be the right answer, but then you have to ask yourself how we got that way in the first place....could it be the rising costs of EVERYTHING, making all the more common that BOTH parents have to work now, thereby leaving less time for a mom to plan and cook healthy well rounded meals for her family?

That's it's easier and quicker to heat up that box of mac n cheese or go to McDonald's after working 9-10 hours a day to get that limited health care or other benefits....that the cheaper foods are chock full of HFCS, trans fats, and everything else that's making us all sick and tired? That eating healthier might actually cost a family twice as much each month, something they might not be able to afford? Or do you just assume that these issues don't affect the average family?

and @Bladefist: Nice thought, but if you wait for that to happen, you'll never have kids. I read a report the other day that a kid will cost (on average) about $218K to raise from birth to 18. That's up from $100K about 10 years ago. That's almosot an extra 20K a year you'd have to make. Think that's easy? If so, maybe I'll switch to your line of work.

And I'm tired of this stupid DMV argument. I don't pay 6K a year to the DMV for them to provide me service, unlike what I pay for my health insurance. If we all had to pay 6K towards the DMV, I would imagine it would be running a lot smoother that it does now with the limited amount of funding it actually gets. For government programs to work, you actually have to FINANCE them.

@Bladefist: Our government is ripping us off RIGHT NOW on this issue, but on behalf of corporate insurers. My main point is that social insurance couldn't be any worse than what we're doing right now, because what we're doing right now is horrible.

@AmbiUbi: Like I've said before, I think the reason that a lot of free-market healthcare advocates frequently talk about "fat lazy people", "smokers", etc, is to rationalize their own opposition to sharing costs with others. They want to imagine that most people who get sick deserve it somehow so that they can feel less guilty about being greedy because they currently don't have severe health problems.

@johnva: True dat....I mean, I'm healthy now and rarely have to use my health insurance, but I want it to be easy and affordable when I need to do so.

@AmbiUbi: "If we all had to pay 6K towards the DMV, I would imagine it would be running a lot smoother that it does now with the limited amount of funding it actually gets."

This is crazy. Bernanke states above "Spending on health-care services currently exceeds 15 percent of the gross domestic product". And the argument is "we aren't spending enough" to get it to run more smoothly?

The answer is allowing each individual to control more of their healthcare dollar so they can judge if they are getting their moneys worth or not. Allowing people to buy health insurance for carriers from different states would at least begin the process of giving us more control of our spending.

The government does not know how to spend MY MONEY better than I DO.

@ThinkerTDM: There are also many health issues that are caused by obesity and leading a sedentary lifestyle. Diabetes, heart disease, many joint problems, high blood pressure, gallstones, etc. could be reduced greatly if the *average* American was more physically active. While it is true that, even if you lead a healthy lifestyle, you oould get cancer at any time, you greatly increase your standard of living by being proactive about your health.

Definition of health care reform: Fat cat Republicans with Gold Standard health care plans saying "I've got my stash, go get yours whiner. Work 3 McJobs and save up for brain surgery or die. And that goes for you and your kids. If you can't afford it you shouldn't have had kids. But, we're pro-Life just the same Sport."

@IamNotToddDavis: Maybe you missed my point? I wasn't saying that I think it's underfunded; I was talking about the comparison some use that government run health care would never work because "just look at the DMV", a vastly UNDERFUNDED government program. You reiterated my point by stating what Bernake said about GDP. I was trying to draw out the fact that it's comparing apples and organges..that maybe what...$200 of my personal yearly taxes goes towards the DMV (no actual idea, just throwing a number out there), which runs like crap, compared to the 6K out of pocket I pay for insurance, which ALSO runs like crap? At least I'd be paying less for insurance if it were government funded.

I feel that problem is that insurance companies are a for-profit system...why would anyone in their right minds think that ANY company is going to chose their profits over your health? If it were government controlled, I would imagine it would revert to a non-profit system. And, as far as I know, insurance companies already can be based in other states? I know at least car insurance can...and I believe although my BRANCH of BCBS is based in PA, the main BCBS is elsewhere.

@ironchef: right, a natural disaster can strike anywhere, sure, but living along the gulf coast is certainly a riskier proposition to build your house than the middle of nebraska, right?
so why should the people in nebraska pay to build homes in the gulf coast? get the point?
also, a major cause of cancer is smoking, which is preventable.

we could easily afford all the healthcare for everyone in the country if we were only paying for injuries or illnesses not caused by personal lifestyle.

so it's up to you.. govt paid healthcare, and the govt gets to tell you what to eat, exercise, what activities you can do, how often you can drink,
or you can just choose on your own and pay for your own healthcare.

i don't like big brother having any more power than he already has so i go with option B there.

@AmbiUbi: absurd. healthy food is cheap. you don't have to go to whole foods, you know.
processed food always costs more than fresh. check out fruit and vegetable prices sometime.
people are fat and lazy because they choose to be that way, and because exercise is hard.

i think it's funny that you compare mac n cheese to mcdonalds? neither of those is healthy. but i guarantee you a box of mac n cheese costs less than 3 or 4 mickey d's meals.

if you think poverty makes people fat, go to a 3rd world country sometime. not having enough money to buy food makes you skinny, not fat.

@worksintheory: Add to that, not-for-profit pharmecutical companies, hospitals, and doctors and then maybe you've got something there. How about that? Health care for the benefit of its patients and not the wallets of those in the industry? Wow, now that would be something to see!!!

The DMV argument might be a bit of a strawman, but we can look at other government programs as an example. For instance 75 cents on the dollar of federal wellfare goes the bureaucrats in overhead. When you compare this to 25% overhead at the red cross, it a serious contrast. I won't even touch Social Security vs a standard union pension plan.

Sure HMO's and insurance company's are evil. I'm not going to claim they aren't. However look at the GWB and the cronyism that has that has been rampent in his administration. While difficult to change insurance companies, it's easier than changing governments.

We could get into the morality of the system as well. Think of what could happen when they need to cut costs. Your personal choices will be made for you in the interest of your health.
For instance:

No motorcycles, morbidity rate is to high
Manditory condom use to lower STD rates,
Mandatory exercise time.

Sure these are far fetched and fanciful, but 20 years ago do you think they would have outlawed smoking and talked about taxing fast food in the interest of public health?

@nedzeppelin: Many economists feel that low income people eat fast food and smoke because it provides instant gradification. They don't have the long term gradification that comes with a successful carrer so they take the easier more instant approach.

I have a hard time believing that someone is so overworked they can't fix healthy meals. My gril friend and I work full time and go to grad school part time in the evenings and still have fresh meals everyday. Its a choice, some see their health as a priority and exercise and eat well, others would rather watch TV.

@nedzeppelin: This just in: Fast food is readily available in Canada. European nations don't tell their citizens that they can't drink or smoke.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. of A., your employer can regulate whether or not you smoke in your own home, as an attempt to keep health care costs down.

Private health care is better than public... why, exactly?

I think the disconnect here is that the Repubs have a point, and in fact are largely right.

EXCEPT that the system they point to is CORRUPT, and in fact does not work like they want to say it does because of the kickbacks, backroom deals, and tie-ins with the gov't.

Most republicans look at it and say "keep gov't out" and that's a great concept, except that it DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY; instead the private sector buys off the gov't, makes deals with it, to the detriment of the layman. If you don't think so then why does Canada get cheaper drugs than Americans, from American Drug Companies....?

liberals look at it and say "Gov't run would be better" when what they really mean is "since they're dealing w/ the gov't anyway, we want it regulated as such with full transparency." As in, they want the fact that they're playing together to be recognized and dealt with fairly for all.

@ CRNewsom: Type II diabetes is *influenced* by lifestyle. Type I (me) is not.
If I am reading this right, the thought is that prices should be higher to punish those who choose an unhealthy lifestyle, with you as the basis for healthiness.
If you smoke, then you should pay more. If don't exercise, then you should pay more.
One glaring issue is defining who should decide what is a healthy lifestyle, and what is not. We all agree that extremes can easily be determined, but what about the majority of us who are not in the extreme? Who decides what is healthy?
People like you, apparently the healthiest among us, think that they have the right to decide what is healthy for the rest of us. I am pretty sure I can find something about you that would put you in a risk category, no matter how perfect you think you are.
Fill up your vehicle with gas? Gas fumes can be toxic. Drink any alcohol at all? Alcohol is a poison. Do you live in an area with a high number of pollutants? Bad mistake.

In fact, I have seen many people- the so called fatties and lazy who have no problems at all, while your so-called healthy person has multiple health conditions.
Why? Just dumb luck. And that is my point.

Bad luck is responsible for just as many medical conditions as a so called unhealthy lifestyle.

It's fine that the chairman of the Fed addresses the Heath Bar crisis, but I'm deeply concerned that he's neglecting the Snickers crunch.

@AmbiUbi: " I was talking about the comparison some use that government run health care would never work because "just look at the DMV", a vastly UNDERFUNDED government program."

The DMV argument is idiotic, and I agree that this is a useless analogy. What I can use instead is our current Government run health care programs -Medicaire and Medicaid. They are not fiscally solvent by any reasonable measure, and the costs of maintaining these programs and benefits at current levels is already more than we can afford. All this does is reinforce my point that GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS ARE NOT A FRUGAL AND COST EFFECTIVE WAY OF SPENDING MY HEALTHCARE DOLLARS.

What is proven by both history and economics is the free and open market is a much more cost effective means of distributing goods and services than the government.

This isn't a republican/democrat thing. It's a logic vs. insanity thing.

@nedzeppelin: I don't go to whole foods, and think that places like that shouldn't even be in existence (but that's for another day lol). I do the shopping for my house. I know what I spend. Maybe we have different definitions of "expensive". To me, 9 bucks for one small steak, 4 bucks for one artichoke, or 12 bucks for 3 chicken breasts is "expensive", and adds up quickly. Maybe not for you?

Kraft Mac n cheese (around $1.40 a box where I live) is comparable to a cheeseburger on the McDonald's menu prices (I don't know ANY poduct of mac n cheese that would be equal to 4 mcdonald's meals). The only point was, neither was a "healthier" option, like you said, yet these are "cheap" and "quick and easy" foods that can work their way into every family's budget, and do, probably more often than they should. But I pose the question again, WHY is that so? I think it's because people have less time.

And malnutrition does a variety of things to a variety of people. Depends on what you manage to get to eat in one day. You may have killed your own point by trying to imply earlier that skinny must automatically mean healthy (or at least, that's what I took out of it when you said Americans are fat and lazy and therefore, UNhealthy). One may be 100 pounds over weight yet can still be malnourished.
I'm glad for you that you are seemingly healthy and have time to get all the excercise you need. That doesn't mean the rest of us do, nor does it mean you'll always have it that easy.

A free market does not require the existence of competition, however it does require that there are no barriers to new market entrants. Hence, in the lack of coercive barriers it is generally understood that competition flourishes in a free market environment. With increased competition the consumer's satisfaction becomes paramount to success.

Why does this free market principle not work with health care? Anyone have a thought?

@Viva La Volvo: You mean "heath", you were having a Heath Bar, I so jellous, I feel like I got wtfpwnd.

@nedzeppelin: Cancer happens to people who don't smoke. Fat people, smokers and people with birth defects are nearly impossible to self insure right now.

And if you are unlucky to be 50 and over but don't qualify for medicare yet, it's almost impossible to get covered.

@LogicalOne: Not-for-profit doctors?

So, let's get this straight. You expect somebody to go through college, medical school, internship, residency, plus any time learning a specialty and then be willing to accept a "Not-for-profit" wage??

As for "non-profit" drug companies, are you aware that every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars developing drugs, a very small portion of which will make it to the market. Do you think that they're going to spend those billions if they're not allowed to recoup that investment or to earn a profit when they're successful?

And, incidentally, most hospitals ARE not-for-profit.

@IamNotToddDavis: Except that Medicare and Medicaid actually have lower administrative overhead than private insurers do. The only sense that Medicare is "insolvent" in is that costs are growing at a rate beyond the funding available. But that's also true of private insurance that pays for healthcare. The underlying problem for both is just that healthcare is getting too expensive. Your argument isn't a valid argument that government-run healthcare is worse. The only difference between the two is that private insurers have more methods available to them to dump the most expensive patients on the government, while the government has noone to dump them on. So a lot of the people who can't get private insurance end up on Medicaid, etc, inflating the program's cost.

The real question is which way of managing healthcare dollars is more efficient? And the answer to that seems to be a government system, not a patchwork of private insurance providers.