Slashdot Mirror

Making devices withstand pressure and heat would increase costs quite a bit.

US Healthcare costs are already grossly inflated and the companies charge what they charge because they can get it, not because it's based in reality. I'm trying to find where I read about a medical tool that failed to market because it was priced too cheaply, and was successfully marketed and reintroduced at a higher price point. 2010 cost breakdown structures and equipment is a fraction of the total expenditure. This is like the drought in California asking residents who use up 14% of the water to conserve by 20% (I understand everyone needs to do their part). There is so much waste in medical, for example, you take a tablet out of the container and the patient refuses to take it, pitch it.

I'm involved with software related to caregivers, the regulations are stunning.

You do realize that the cost of prescription drugs accounts for only about 10% of total healthcare spending in the US? Reducing drug costs further would do almost nothing to lower medical costs. The real problem in the US is that care by hospitals and doctors here is astronomical compared to other countries. Further, the costs for the exact same services at the same hospitals can vary by as much as 500% depending on whether the patient is on medicare, private insurance, or not insured. That's what's f***ed up about our system, not drug costs. And by the way, most "big pharma" are a mess, losing money right and left - See Pfizer, Eli Lilly (whose generic business is helping keep it afloat) and Astra Zeneca. Big pharma isn't rolling in dough as they were in the 80s and 90s. http://www.aetna.com/health-re...

You know I am sick and tired of everyone blaming doctors for the cost of healthcare in the US. When in fact, doctors salaries are a miniscule portion of US healthcare, especially compared to drugs and device costs and hospital CEO pay!

Well, looking at this graph, which I'd say looks like most I've seen, for every dollar that gets spent on drugs, two dollars get spent on doctors. In most cases it is the drug that actually has the health benefit, and the doctor just figures out which one is the most appropriate one to prescribe. I'm not sure where this particular breakdown stuck devices - often they're treated as drugs (they're certainly regulated in a similar fashion).

Now, there are certainly plenty of ways to make drugs cheaper, but you can't really pick any part of the US healthcare system and say "hey, this one part is fine - just make everything else cheaper."

As far as schooling/etc goes - the cost of medical school certainly is higher, but that is simply because that is what the market will bear. No idiot is going to spend $250k to get a PhD in Biochemistry, because Biochemists get paid peanuts (despite the fact that they invent half of those drugs, devices, and procedures the doctors end up using).

The whole 12-hour-day thing is a culture thing - there is no need to have doctors working those kinds of hours. Just educate more of them, and have them work more reasonable shifts. If anything those hours probably chase off many who would otherwise want to work in the profession (something the AMA probably counts on). Medical school selects for workaholics and it shouldn't be surprising that workaholics like to work. It isn't some kind of virtue. There is certainly a need for continuity of care which isn't always conducive to a 9-5 M-F schedule, but if individual doctors took on fewer patients they could still give the ones they take better care while spending less time doing it.

Lots of people work hard. Few get paid the kinds of salaries doctors collect.

As far as investment bankers making $500k goes - that is nuts as well. However, you can't point to the 0.001% of workers who make such insane salaries as justification. How about looking at the average US salary of full-time PhD holders of $80k/yr?

Your switch won't matter at all. The plans are grandfathered in, not people. As long as the plan you are on was in existence on March 2013 and had people enrolled it's possible for it to be grandfathered. If a company chooses to keep a plan available you could even change to a grandfathered plan 10 years from now if you really want to.

Here's something I found with some more details on what would make a plan ineligible: https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/questions-answers/grandfathering.html#4

  It's still not perfect as much of it just says "signficant increase" or similar, where "significant" is not precisely defined, but you'll note that it has more to do with costs and coverage changes, more than specifying what must be covered.

One thing that might help you is to figure out in advance if you'll be eligible for the subsidy, but note that it can only be used on insurance purchased on the exchange. Here's the best calculator I can find at the moment: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

This is a link to the program:
http://www.aetna.com/externalweb/documents/aetna_vision_discounts1.pdf

Sorry, it's a pdf, but it is all that I could find.

I did some quick searching a month back. In Maine, for private single person health insurance, there is very little choice, and what few choices there are, are very expensive. Also, for insurance companies that do operate in Maine, they offer limited plans.

There is no Aetna, little Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield, little Assurant, no Cigna, no UnitedHealth/Golden Rule, no Humana. A health insurance searcher doesn't work, either: no eHealthInsurance.

While black people compose 12.8% of the population, that ratio is nowhere near representative when you look at executive-level management at large corporations. I don't think it's a stretch to presuppose that of the black people who do climb that high, they have to be exceptionally aggressive.

---

The same thing applies. Notice that both blacks AND women (and any other minorities) are sorely underrepresented in the Fortune 500 CEO list. African-Americans still hold less than 1 percent of the tens of thousands of senior-level, corporate posts at America's 1,000 largest public corporations. And, as a further note, black WOMEN hold 0 Fortune 500 CEO positions.

So yes, I do think it is a sexist anecdote. As far as women claiming they "feel that they have to act like a bitch to get any respect", I think that's a symptom of our society more than anything else. When men act like assholes, especially from the top rung, it's considered being a hardass, but also being a good manager. When women act like hardassess and do the same thing a male would do, from the same position (CEO/CxO), some men consider that "being a bitch." And I'm sure those women you anecdotally quoted are talking about that discrepancy.

As a woman CEO myself, I've noticed that as well. I will be nice to you unless you make it clear that shit is not getting done. Then I will not hesitate to yell, hold back payment (if you're a supplier), give you an ultimatum, or fire you (if you're an employee.) Some people may consider this bitchy. I consider it getting the job done. And it's what any good CEO (male, female, black, white) would do in the same position.

A counted number, actually; it's about 45 million Americans right this moment, and in a typical year ~75 million will lack health insurance for some of that year. (link)

So, what does that mean?

It means 18,000 dead Americans every year.

It means a 9/11 every two months.

But why should you care? It's only lazy jobless bums dying, right?

Contrary to expectations, most of the uninsured are employed full-time.

But we're saving money, right?

Not only does the USA spend $35 billion/year to treat the uninsured, much of that is for emergency treatment that could be much more efficiently (and cheaply) handled with an earlier diagnosis. Moreover, the lack of health care costs the nation about $100 billion yearly in lost productivity. (link)

But it would cost too much to insure everyone, right?

At an average cost of $9,000 for family insurance and assuming families of three, the cost to insure those 45 million Americans would be $135 billion, or very nearly the amount saved in uninsured medical costs and lost productivity. At the very least, $35 billion of that is already being paid for (uninsured emergency care), and about $20 billion would come back to the government in taxes, representing a maximum cost of $80 billion.

$80 billion for 18,000 American lives; that's $4,500,000 per dead American. In other words, each $1 billion spent on missile defense is equivalent to 220 dead Americans. The $10 billion per year we're spending on missile defense could save as many lives in two years as all the terrorist attacks on US soil have taken since the nation was founded.

In the richest nation in the world, is that acceptable?

Up to you. But know the facts before you decide how many American lives a particular government program is worth to you, and which is the most efficient way to save American lives.

IANL obviously.

Ahhh, another company damaged by Ellen Hancock.

• IBM's PRGS ("Programming Systems") Laboratories, of which she was the overall manager
  
• Apple Computer Corp, as the right-hand of Gil Amelio
  
• Exodus Communications, where she was CEO
  
• Global Crossing, the poor sots that ended up with 108 million worthless shares of Exodus
  

• Cable and Wireless, another batch of poor sots that bought parts of Exodus
  

So, what other companies and organizations are on the watch-list?

• Aetna
  
• Colgate-Palmolive
  
• Marist College
  
• Santa Clara University
  

Disclaimer: Well, duh ... of course I am a disgruntled ex-employee of Ms. Hancock back when she was a IBMer. I just did not realize how bad she really was ... even if none of this was her fault, she has still been at the epicenter of many closed office buildings over the years.