Health Care Discussion

[GooooMarquette]

Co-sign.

Once the Federal Govt got into the business of backing student loans, banks will loan to roughly anyone who wants higher education, regardless of the value of the underlying asset, namely, the future earning power of the degree obtained.

Engineering degrees and anthropology degrees have a vastly different future earning power, yet they are funded the same.

Meanwhile, with this flood of loans, Universities aren't incentivized to cut costs like regular business is, and go the opposite way: the costlier the college, the more prestigious it must be.

Those days are numbered, either via governmental policy changes (less likely) or by education consumers wising up.

BINGO!

Look at two areas of the economy where prices have risen far faster than general inflation:  education and health care.  The common factor is that the government has inserted itself into the funding equation.  The mechanisms are different, but the result has been that education and health care changed from things you bought to things you were entitled to.  Because of this, consumers no longer felt the need to look for the best value, so "sellers" (schools and health care providers) have had carte blanche to raise prices without fear that their market would disappear.

The problem now is that schools and health care providers have gotten so used to the government subsidization that it could take decades to undo the mess.  And every chance we have to mitigate the mess, we instead compound it by expanding the programs.  Look again at healthcare.  Government subsidization caused spiraling costs, which in turn led to fewer and fewer people being able to afford it.  Was the government's solution to cut the program back?  No, the "Affordable Care Act" (a backward term if there ever was one) instead expanded the government subsidization of health care.  Yeah - that's going to work....

Going back to education, if we're ever going to get back to education being a rational market, we will need the government to pull itself out of the funding equation.  This would be a long and painful process...and Americans don't like things to be difficult.  As a result, I suspect we'll keep putting band aids on the problem...and our grandkids will still be talking about how to fix it decades from now.

[Avenue Commons]

This is probably the reason they cancelled the Freshman Frontier Program, which I'm still pissed about...long live FFP

I thought it was called the Freshman F'up Program?

[Stronghold]

I hope you're wrong.  I know that school is very expensive, but that is something that each student can decide for themselves.  I don't see the government bailing out everyday people.  It is too expensive, and it would infuriate the folks who have had to take it in the shorts with their property.

My friends who started as HVAC, plumbing, etc apprentices make a pretty good living.  Plus they don't have the enormous debt that exists for a lot of new graduates.  Additionally, there are actually jobs available.  It may sound like heresy, but if I had a child that was college age that didn't get scholarships, grants, financial aid, and was considering college, I'd tell him or her that they should probably not go to college.  The risk/reward just isn't there anymore.

As a side note, I think its great to go to school... the experience is wonderful, the people you meet become life friends, and depending on your major you can still find a job out of school.  I'd suggest going to community college for two years to keep costs low and then transfer to a major university.

I agree with a lot of this.  There are still a huge number of kids that 4-year universities are an excellent fit for, and they will end up being successful in life with their investment in education.  The problem now arises when every Tom, Dick, and Harry are being pushed to go to college no matter their academic level, interests, abilities, etc.  I know more than a handful of people who get a 4-year degree and end up with a $30,000 a year job anyway.  Many 2-year technical/vocational/trade school programs are excellent fits for people to learn a profession and make a comfortable living.  The plumbing example you used is a great example.  The problem is kids are being pushed to 4-year colleges because its "the thing to do."

Kids who have an interest in mechanics, welding, plumbing, electrical work, carpentry, etc. should be steered toward those programs which are in most cases quite affordable.  I have too many friends who have a bachelor's degree in Business/Communication and don't have any marketable skills, while other friends of mine are trained in a particular set of skills with a 2-year technical degree and can find jobs all over.

[warriorchick]

I thought it was called the Freshman F'up Program?

Or Financially Fit Parents.

[KenoshaWarrior]

Superbar??

[Ari Gold]

Co-sign.

Once the Federal Govt got into the business of backing student loans, banks will loan to roughly anyone who wants higher education, regardless of the value of the underlying asset, namely, the future earning power of the degree obtained.

Engineering degrees and anthropology degrees have a vastly different future earning power, yet they are funded the same.

Meanwhile, with this flood of loans, Universities aren't incentivized to cut costs like regular business is, and go the opposite way: the costlier the college, the more prestigious it must be.

Those days are numbered, either via governmental policy changes (less likely) or by education consumers wising up.

the Gov backing the student loan industry is the reason the schools can just increase tuition with ease now.

 Doubly true for Grad student subsidies (law/dental/Dr vs insert joke grad degree here)

The total student loan debt burden is over $1 trillion now. The argument has been made that the student loan debt could be to blame for the stagnant economy.  Too much debt = not buying a house/starting a family

And Hards: if I wasn't a recent grad, I wouldnt want the bubble to pop/bailouts to come. but since I've got significant loan debt I wouldnt mind a sweet sweet gov bailout. On the flip side if students start defaulting on their loans en masse taxpayers are going to be on the hook

Furthermore its not MU that will have the problems if tuition gets that out of control. I think the small liberal arts colleges (Carroll, Viterbo, St. Norberts, Marrian) are the ones that will be really unnatural carnal knowledgeed.

[mu_hilltopper]

BINGO!

The problem now is that schools and health care providers have gotten so used to the government subsidization that it could take decades to undo the mess. 

Not sure about that.  Yes, Uncle Sam subsidizes health care, but Medicare/Medicaid rates are far below what the market charges .. so much so, that many providers refuse to take those patients. 

The ACA has only affected health care costs over the past couple years since it passed.  The trend in increases has been going for 10-15 years prior.  Why?  Because we keep inventing new and costly ways of keeping people alive, and no one wants to die or feel sick.  Add in an unhealthy populace and an increasing life expectancy .. big problems.

[Coleman]

The ACA has only affected health care costs over the past couple years since it passed.  The trend in increases has been going for 10-15 years prior.  Why?  Because we keep inventing new and costly ways of keeping people alive, and no one wants to die or feel sick.  Add in an unhealthy populace and an increasing life expectancy .. big problems.

Not to mention hospitals charging prices that are exponentially higher than costs to line the pockets of their executives

[Stronghold]

Not to mention hospitals charging prices that are exponentially higher than costs to line the pockets of their executives

Executives that are about as well-suited to make medical decisions as Fr. Pilarz is to coach the men's basketball team.

[GooooMarquette]

Not to mention hospitals charging prices that are exponentially higher than costs to line the pockets of their executives

Which they have been able to charge...because the patients who go to those hospitals don't have to worry about the costs.  In the "old days" when patients knew they would be financially responsble, they scrutinized costs.  This led the hospitals and docs to be much more cognizant (and conservative) in what they charged.  Then, the government disconnected the buying decision (patient) from the payment responsibility (gov't).  This led to patients going wherever they wanted, regardless of the cost.  And the prices went up...and up...and up....

[GGGG]

Executives that are about as well-suited to make medical decisions as Fr. Pilarz is to coach the men's basketball team.

A hospital executive isn't hired to make medical decisions and a university president isn't hired to coach a basketball team.

[BubbaWilliams]

Or Financially Fit Parents.

Screw you lady. I busted my ass to pay for college and the only reason I got in was because of FFP. I didn't take HS all to seriously when I first got there, but busted my hump JR/SR year. This elitist BS is not what MU should be about. I have life long friends from FFP that are DRs, Lawyers, and college professors, who were accepted into MU solely because of the Program.

[swoopem]

Or Financially Fit Parents.

Is that a bad thing also don't you have 2 kids at MU? As discussed in this thread no matter how you cut it Marquette is not cheap.

It stands for F*cking Fantastic Partiers 

[GGGG]

Screw you lady. I busted my ass to pay for college and the only reason I got in was because of FFP. I didn't take HS all to seriously when I first got there, but busted my hump JR/SR year. This elitist BS is not what MU should be about. I have life long friends from FFP that are DRs, Lawyers, and college professors, who were accepted into MU solely because of the Program.

Calm down dude.  FFP was commonly called that when I was a student there.  I doubt she meant anything by it.

[PaintTouches]

Having worked in the health care business field for a bit I can tell you with 100% certainty the rise in costs has absolutely nothing to do with the government intervention. In fact, it's widely believed in that field that government intervention (price controls, basically) is probably the only way to curtail that rise, hence the backlash to the upcoming involvement.

It has nothing to do with politics either, simply the way the "market" is structured with endless demand.

[warriorchick]

Is that a bad thing also don't you have 2 kids at MU? As discussed in this thread no matter how you cut it Marquette is not cheap.

It stands for F*cking Fantastic Partiers 

I was not making a judgement call.  I was just repeating a joke that was common among us orientation leaders.

And as for your alternative - maybe that is one of the reasons they revamped FFP.  It is common knowledge that at least in the past few years, excessive partying has been a serious issue  - especially in the summer term before freshman year starts.  Just ask the LIMO drivers that work over the summer.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Which they have been able to charge...because the patients who go to those hospitals don't have to worry about the costs.  In the "old days" when patients knew they would be financially responsble, they scrutinized costs.  This led the hospitals and docs to be much more cognizant (and conservative) in what they charged.  Then, the government disconnected the buying decision (patient) from the payment responsibility (gov't).  This led to patients going wherever they wanted, regardless of the cost.  And the prices went up...and up...and up....

You are partially correct but you seem to be forgetting about a little thing called health insurance and instead solely blaming the government.  Here is the issue:  Majority of people pay a fixed amount per month (which, if you get insurance through your job, 90% of people probably don't even know what that amount is) and you get unlimited access to care.  Since you have no idea what that care really costs, you have no incentive to moderate your use or any fiscal reason to do so.  If people were in charge of buying their own care, costs would come down very quickly.  

For an excellent, in-depth view of how to change the health care system, read this article:  http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/307617/

[Coleman]

Time Magazine did an outstanding expose on the health care cost issue

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html

Looks like you need a subscription to read though

[GooooMarquette]

Having worked in the health care business field for a bit I can tell you with 100% certainty the rise in costs has absolutely nothing to do with the government intervention. In fact, it's widely believed in that field that government intervention (price controls, basically) is probably the only way to curtail that rise, hence the backlash to the upcoming involvement.

It has nothing to do with politics either, simply the way the "market" is structured with endless demand.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  I have worked in healthcare for a bit (20 years) too.  Here (http://www.metricmash.com/inflation.aspx?code=SA0,SAM2,SAE1&recession=false&from=200101&to=201112&period=&political=false) is a chart from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the rise in costs, separating out health care (green line) from the overall rate of inflation in the economy (blue line).  If you go to the bottom and tell the chart to show numbers from 1960 to the present, you see an interesting trend.  Up until about 1965, the inflation rate for healthcare closely tracked the overall inflation rate.  Starting in the mid-1960s, the numbers began to diverge...first slowly, then faster and faster.  Why is the mid-60s relevant?  Because the Medicare law took effect on January 1, 1966.

But yeah, keep telling yourself that the rise in healthcare costs has nothing to do with government intervention.

[Sunbelt15]

I missed the part of the strategic vision where MU had a plan to combat the fact that the universe of families able and/or willing to pay private school tuition eventually drops to zero in the long run.

In 19 short years, with the average 5% annual increase, MU's tuition is $101k per year.  

Good luck.

Aiming for Harvard or M.I.T. status?

[swoopem]

And as for your alternative - maybe that is one of the reasons they revamped FFP.  It is common knowledge that at least in the past few years, excessive partying has been a serious issue  - especially in the summer term before freshman year starts.  Just ask the LIMO drivers that work over the summer.

It's the summertime and the first taste of college/freedom that kids get, of coarse they're going to party. Same reason why there are so many writeups in the dorms, kids going to hospital to get their stomachs pumped, kids getting caught with fake ids, etc during the first few weeks of the semester; some kids go nuts and take it overboard once they get out of their parents house. It happens everywhere across the country.

Revamping the program eliminates opportunities for good kids to attend MU. Just because their high school grades weren't spectacular doesn't mean they can't succeed in college. Like BRMU23 said there are students in every class that go on to do great things with their careers and are exceptional representatives for the university. Long live FFP

Also I know you saw the teal

[ChicosBailBonds]

Time Magazine did an outstanding expose on the health care cost issue

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html

Looks like you need a subscription to read though

Forbes and WSJ did an outstanding exposé as well.....came to some different conclusions.

[GooooMarquette]

You are partially correct but you seem to be forgetting about a little thing called health insurance and instead solely blaming the government.

Agree that private insurance plays a part, but it's much smaller.

First, providers' charges are naturally tied to what the largest payer is willing to pay.  That's Medicare.  Second, while all insured patients only feel price increases indirectly, private insurance beneficiaries still have closer contact with rising costs -- through rising insurance premiums.  This could have been a factor in federally insured plans as well...except that no politician wanted to be the one to raise Medicare premiums.  At the end of the day, Medicare is bigger than other payers, and Medicare beneficiaries are far more shielded from cost increases than other beneficiaries.

So yes, private insurance plays a part...but a much smaller part.

[PaintTouches]

But yeah, keep telling yourself that the rise in healthcare costs has nothing to do with government intervention.

This isn't the proper forum for a full on discussion, I just don't understand how the U.S., with the least amount of government intervention in the field of healthcare of industrialized countries, spends more, by far, than any other country both gross and per person. How do you explain that one?

(Feel free to PM me as I love talking healthcare biz but realize this is a terrible bore to most here with absolutely no relevance to mubb)

[Hards Alumni]

Sorry, but you are wrong.  I have worked in healthcare for a bit (20 years) too.  Here (http://www.metricmash.com/inflation.aspx?code=SA0,SAM2,SAE1&recession=false&from=200101&to=201112&period=&political=false) is a chart from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the rise in costs, separating out health care (green line) from the overall rate of inflation in the economy (blue line).  If you go to the bottom and tell the chart to show numbers from 1960 to the present, you see an interesting trend.  Up until about 1965, the inflation rate for healthcare closely tracked the overall inflation rate.  Starting in the mid-1960s, the numbers began to diverge...first slowly, then faster and faster.  Why is the mid-60s relevant?  Because the Medicare law took effect on January 1, 1966.

But yeah, keep telling yourself that the rise in healthcare costs has nothing to do with government intervention.

New expensive ways to treat an unhealthier population that is living longer with chronic problems.  There is your problem.  How many MRI's get taken every year?  How many of them necessary?  The cost of pharmaceuticals has increased substantially since there are more identifiable problems with people and there are more pharmaceuticals developed to treat these illnesses.  Life expectancy has increased and thus the burden on medicare has increased.  Sure, the government pays the bills on medicare, but the doctors/insurance companies are also to blame.  Doctors have to cover their own asses due to medical malpractice, so they order more testing (more money!).  Of course, insurance companies are forced to raise the rates to make up for this cost... and a lot of this cost gets passed onto the the customer(government in cases of medicare).

The entire system is a giant CF.  There is no easy fix.  The current step in the right direction is to have everyone contribute to the health care system.  There are far to few people paying into HC, and too many people taking money out of the system... So those paying in will end up paying more and more.  I know a lot of people object to being forced to buy HC insurance (or anything for that matter), but it has to happen.  If people don't buy their insurance until they are already sick they will never pay enough money in to cover what they take out.  Additionally, the people who don't have insurance still go to the doctor, and they go to the ER.  Who pays for that?  The doctors have to pass the cost somewhere.  Insurance.  Medicare.  etc.

Honestly, the only way to fix the problem is for people to take better care of themselves and involve themselves more in their health care.  But the system is totally incentivized against doing that.  $500 copay to go the doctor?  Can't afford that, just hope the problem goes away, or wait until its an emergency.  Then when the time comes the problem is the same for the patient, but the cost for the insurance company is SIGNIFICANTLY higher.  blah blah blah, I could talk about this for hours, but I guess this thread has already gone WAY off of the original topic.