33 votes

Stossel: Are Healthcare Costs Really Going Up?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

why

does this video auto-play? Extremely annoying, please removed embedded video and just post a link. I dont want to hear Stossels voice every time I load the home page. Thank you!

This is Nonsense!


Health Care has not gotten better, it has just gotten more corrupt.

All of these "New Drugs" are the problem, and not the cure here. All these "new drugs" have horrible side-effects, and cause more problems (including Cancer) than anything that they pretend to solve -- and they just mask symptoms anyway, they don't "cure" anything. It is all just a big money-making racket for the Big Pharmacetical Corporations.

And Cancer has not been cured by conventional medicine. There has been no change at all since the 1950s - Surgery(cutting), Radiation (burning), or Chemotherapy (posioning). All of these have high failure rates, and more people die from Cancer than ever before.

The truth is that in 1950, medicine was not that bad. Doctors would even make house calls. The costs were low. Nobody went bankrupt. There were most all of the same Surgery options back then. And you were not just loaded-up with a lot of junk and posion -- today there's a (poison) "pill" for everything.

Health Care costs are up 400% because of the Insurance Corporations, and the whole Pharmacuetical corruption.

This Video lies!



very sad

that people in this country can't understand simple laws of economics like supply and demand. if someone else is paying for it, demand will skyrocket. with all the licensing and regulations the supply with be cut dramatically (as it has been since the early 1900s). you don't need a nobel prize to guess what prices will do.

Stossel

Is a moronic a$$hole. I saw him last night on a show on Fox Noise at my parents house. It was called out of work special. It was basically him and bunch of other neocon freak shows sitting around talking about how all these people that went to college are unemployed, which is a major duuuh moment. We know they are, I sit down in the unemployment office with them. Not all are young people either. Some are in their 40's and 50's. Maybe mid late 30's. I am 27, with only a HS diploma and I am unemployed. Basically Stossel and the neocons were pushing trade schools. LOL Like they are any better. I have seen the prices on them because I looked into welding and gun smith as second choice. I can't afford that. lol So Stossel and some neocon trash go out and interview these young people, some as young as 16-17 that have jobs. Yes they went to a trade school. One was bragging how he makes $15 an hour on the show, you know what our legal minimum wage should be. Butchers in my local Grocery store make Just as much and I doubt they even went to a trade school. Nothing to brag about. That poor kid was getting ripped off, he should be making way more than that if he trully is skilled labor. It is so outrageous that society suckers these kids into going to college digging themselves into debt, then when they get out they pay them what should be the legal minimumwage. Like they did to that guy that went to the trade school. The cheapest trade schools I know of are something like $4,000-$5,000 a year. That is way too much. My brother went to a trade school for electronic repair and he can't find well paying work, hes nearly 20,000 in debt and makes $13.25 an hour. Its insane. He used to make that 10 yrs ago breaking down old PC's. Also my sisters husband used to make that much in the mid 90s driving a delivery truck. The wages in this country are way off. They need to be higher. If I dug myself into debt going to some trade school or college and someone said they would pay me $13 or $15 an hour I would pissed. On top of that like they said on the show, most of those trades require experience. But even the cyber security field, which is something you go to college for requires experience. Then Stossel went down to a local welfare/unemployment office and was harassing the people and workers there. The one black woman said there was no jobs. Then stossel runs around to all these low paying minimum wage service jobs like an icecream parlor and restaurant. The guy at the restaurant says he can't find help. You know? Because he refuses to pay a higher wage. These greedy people will have to get with the times, we can't live on $10 an hour. We need to be paid more than that. We have have huge inflation and everything cost more, it isn't the 1960's anymore. We need at at least $14-$15 an hour at start. You want people to work? Show them that life will improve if they do, no one wants to eat out of a trash can and work at the same time.

* Just to add more. I used to like Stossel a bit, he was a Ron Paul fan I believe. I even agreed with him on some things. But that nasty business he did on Fox News with the neocons last night, suggesting that all th unemployed Americans are lazy and don't want to work, and that we should all go to trade schools to be welders was insulting and it really ticked me off. I have no problem working as long as my life will improve because of it and I am paid a fair wage for my time and labor. I think all Americans could agree. Stossel is now on my s**t list. He wants to hang with the neocons and act like a neocon, than I will stop listening to hima nd watching him. I guess stossel has become to filthy rich and out of touch.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson

Stossel

Your comments on leagle minimum wages are way off. A wage is just a price. To be moral there must be a willing buyer and a will willing seller. If they are mandated then you have lost the willing seller. Also any arbitrary price is always wrong. Only when both parties agree is the price correct.
You are though completely correct about these trade schools and college degrees. Education is actually becomming the next bubble.

Completely agree with above

Completely agree with above poster that the comment was way off on approach toward minimum wage and so forth. He had some great points about the outrageous cost of trade schools and the job pay and prospects for those who go to them. The system is all screwed up and it is due to student loans and regulations...like state licensing. A hair dresser has to get a year of school to get a license to cut hair...REALLY??? A year of school to cut people's hair? That is at least half the time it takes to be an RN and more time than many other health occupations like plephotomist and other occupations who are tinkering with people's bodies. And near me a hair dresser school costs 25 - 40K...and after a whole year of fulltime school how are these guys going to pay off that loan? The schools have skyrocketed their tuition commenserate with the flow of student aid, so students are in no better position than they were when schools were cheap but there were no student loans. The licensing overburdens prospective workers from finding work and/or obtaining skilss as the skill set is pushed through the stratosphere with licensing. Licensing is a way for those already in the profession to keep others out and keep their compensation artificially high. And the licensing ensures the education and trade schools make their artificially high profits too. The job seeker loses out all the way around.

I agree with Stossel to a degree and he is on the right track, but he should actually dig a bit deeper into the education issue and not exalt trade schools to a higher status than they deserve. I think what he may have actually been seeking as a model was the system of apprentiships...which should be brought back to a much larger degree. Every occupation would be much better taught through practical application than through universities and institutions.

Either way

I can't afford college or trade schools. I was seriously thinking about being a gun smith. Though I have never fired a gun. I do like them and wouldn't mind working on them and learning how to do it correctly. I would like to be good at it.

I agree with you on the licensing thing. I understand it may be needed to do some jobs. But my dad is not a licensed or school trained welder and I believe he can weld well. He told me he has. he got his first job as a welder buy a guy who just hired him. He told him to weld some metal together, my dad did and he was hired. He is also a vietnam vet, I don't think he did any welding in the military. But it is ridiculous to expect licenses and formal schooling for jobs they use to use on the job training for. My mom used to work in some of the last factories here in the US before they closed them down. She said they gave her on the job training. She ran machines. I used machines in Shop Class in high school I used a lathe and many others. But I can't use that to help me get a job. No one wants to hear from you without a fancy degree or diploma form a trade school. Its not as simple as the neocons make it out to be. It infuriates me. I want to work, I endjoyed shop class. We made chisels, screw drivers, dust pans made of aluminum and steel handles and even wooden chairs people would use on their decks at home. The teacher would sell them and use the profits to run the shop. I enjoyed that kind of work. I also made a clock out of wood. I felt proud. Not anymore.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson

Allow people to vote with dollars

The free market brings about better quality and lower costs only when individuals have the freedom to vote with their money. How many people in the U.S. have shopped around for a family doctor based on cost versus service? Usually the primary factor in choosing a new doctor is whether they accept your insurance. After that, someone else is paying the bills, so you have no incentive to shop around for anything.

Compare choosing a new doctor to buying a new television. People spend a lot of time selecting the television based on cost and features. As a result, televisions over time have gotten better features at lower cost.

It is obvious that costs will go up under Obamacare, and quality will go down. We would all be better off with major medical insurance that only pays for disastrous medical needs, and paying for everything else out of pocket. People would earn more and costs would go down. Unfortunately, that will never happen. We are headed toward a single payer system after Obamacare wrecks what is left of the free market in healthcare.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

If it goes up to much

there will be a point where people will just pay penalty, not pay it or get minimum coverage health insurance like with car insurance because if it goes up to much and your responsible and healthy and at the top of the food chain you will be better off without it. plus you can negotiate debt with the collectors to drive it down as much as 75% less to pay.

Okay, let us compare a blood test from 1950 to today,

do you really think the price(in US dollars) is the same for the same exact service. Price is deceiving because how do you measure it. In dollars? Gold? Gas? Average wages? Why do computer prices go down, even though they are way more powerful than years ago? I believe using average wages are the best comparison. But, priced in dollars and wages, prices have definitely gone way up.

This guy is a blooming idiot.

This guy is a blooming idiot. He has no idea about free markets. He got one idea right, and that is you have to pay for what you get. To fix it, employers would have to quit offering free or discounted healthcare. The government would have to quit providing free healthcare. Most insurance would have to be done away with. Until people are required to pay for their healthcare, the cost will continue to go up. This would require the healthcare providers to earn your business. The patient would be going around trying to get the best healthcare at the lowest price. And doctors would be forced to do only necessary testing. This by itself would lower healthcare cost and improve the quality. But the pharmaceuticals would have to quit being protected. If I am not mistaken, their drugs are protected for 12 years against competition. As soon as generic drugs are allowed on the market the prices fall dramatically. You can't have healthcare companies adding billions of dollars to the cost of healthcare. Each insurance company and each pharmaceutical company have billions of dollars sitting on their balance sheets, adding to the cost of healthcare. There is so much money in the system that they are not trying to cure illness. For example, since the war on cancer started there has been very little change in the death rate for breast cancer. Billions of dollars have been spent on research. They have 1-5 new miracle cancer drugs on the market every year. The drugs generate 1-5 billion dollars each, but they don't cure anyone. The death rate is not changing. You have to look at prevention. All their cancer drugs are poison, whether it is radiation poison or chemo, you can't poison people and think your going to fix cancer. Right now Ron Paul probably has the best answer. Give people healthcare savings accounts and major medical insurance. This would force people to shop around for most healthcare services. The major medical insurance would still be adding billions of dollars to the cost but on a much more limited basis. It would be best to get rid of all insurance and force people to pay for all healthcare services. This takes the middle men out of the picture.

Look him up on Wikipedia. He

Look him up on Wikipedia. He used to be a big dog at Goldman Sachs. Which begs the question, what is a GS guy doing on a show with libertarian leanings talking about how free markets are better?

You brought up very good points

Its also interesting how individuals buy insurance and how companies buy insurance for their employees. Group health insurance vs individual major medical. Insurance should be geared for catastrophic situations, so the individual when buying his own insurance and PAYING for it himself quickly realizes that having a high deductible is generally in his best interest due to cost savings. With the health savings accounts the savings go into a medical expense account that can be used for cash payments at the time of service. Health care is almost impossible to pay at the time of service, its designed that way. The last thing they want is some "consumer" trying to negotiate price, they want to bill it and for you to accept what they charge.
When the employee is judging insurance its the complete opposite, he wants a low deductible, if any, a $20.00 dollar co-payment, drug and prescription coverage, dental and optical coverage and a plastic card he can use whenever he can. It is because the employee looks at it as a benefit, if you don't use it you lose it and of course he is not paying for it. It also must be pointed out there are huge VESTED interests in the current system, the drug companies, insurance companies, medical providers, do not want the system changed. When Dubya was in his first term he was proposing MSAs, he got shut down pretty quickly on that idea. The last thing the current medical establishment wants is a free market in providing health care. Why? Its because if the individual were making his own decisions and paying for it the cost of health care would come down drastically and that is the last thing the medical-industrial complex wants to happen.

Nothing is free

That sums up the issue. When the government mandates anything and everything are we free? Not to worry, get a job controlling the middle classes wallets (i.e. law enforcement) and your good to go.

Big government and big business wins again. The tax paying middle class worker has been suckered and fooled.

and then you die

I thought the best things in life are free.

.

Indeed they are

That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly. -Thomas Paine

To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not.
-Thomas Paine

Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.
-Albert Camus

and then you die

Beyond August... Whatever happens.

I work in law enforcement and I too believe what you do. Don't think anyone working for the state is beneath you. The cost for many like me is greater because the responsibility on ourselves is huge, but we gotta make it count. The end game is subjugation or freedom. We will be worse off financially but still be better off without the Gods of fortune. it's up to you to change minds. You will need more people like me. Far more.

Ask not what your Paul can do for you, but what you can do for your country - Anon.

Good for you...you have a job

Beyond August? You mean after the GOP convention?

I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble.
-Augustus

An army marches on its stomach. -Napoleon Bonaparte

You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws. -Ron Paul

All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.
-Ron Paul

and then you die

The problem with employer & gov paid health insurance

When you buy a product or a service in the open market, you have some choices. You can shop and compare and make a decision as to what benefits your particular needs and budget. The providers of the product will compete for your business and the successful companies will win through the free market. With employer paid health insurance, or government provided health insurance the market is disrupted, the consumer has little or no choice. Ask yourself these questions. If your employer or government were providing your housing, your groceries, your car, your clothing, what would you be living in, what would you be having for dinner tonight, would you like the car provided or the clothing they picked out for you? Of course not! Because it's at the expense and the choice of the employer or government and not your choice, the products chosen for you would probably be as cheap and basic as possible and the companies providing the product would not be serving you, but be serving the purchaser of the product. Every person should be able to go into the market and buy an individual major medical policy that meets their individual needs. Just like you buy your homeowners, car and life insurance. Problem solved.

his fist example is bogus

about 1950s healthcare being cheap because technology then was crappy compared to today. because you could say the opposite of that for a lot of things, especially areas where technology keeps on advancing. computers and cell phones being the most obvious examples. the only exceptions are areas poisoned with government intervention.

I don't think that's what he

I don't think that's what he was saying. His point was that insurance is more expensive now than earlier because there is more technology.

For instance, CAT scans are expensive to build and operate. They didn't exist in the 50's. So today's insurance policies that include coverage for health issues for which doctors prescribe CAT scans (i.e. spine issues) are going to be more expensive than similar coverage policies from the 50's when such technology wasn't available.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Giving birth in a hospital is

Giving birth in a hospital is a great issue on which to compare this. A birth in the 50s was less than $86!
http://www.workingmomsagainstguilt.com/2008/04/the-cost-of-h...

A normal, uneventful birth today is about 5 - 15k. Looks like health care is more expensive today regardless of technology.

ok?

so you are saying that the better the technology, the more we should expect to pay? that's what he, and you are saying, right? how, then, does my phone, which was like 18$ on a two year upgrade, and can preform more functions than the first computers made by ibm, which were more than a million$ each, cost less? shouldn't i be paying billions for such highly advanced equipment? I'm sure it was expensive to build the very first CAT scanner and all that, but the reason why medical devices are so expensive is all the regulations and laws that keep other manufacturers out of the CAT scanner making business.

Probably, but since I don't

Probably, but since I don't live in the states, I don't really give two shits.