Separate a man from the consequences of his health decisions, as HMOs/employer paid healthcare/Medicare/Medicaid/MNCare do, and what do you expect to happen to demand? It goes up, right?

Now, separate a man’s compensation from the results of his work, as all bureaucracies do, and what do you think happens to the quality of his work? If you said “Amtrak!”, go to the head of the class.

Is this really so complicated to you? Yes, those government programs appear to be a benefit, since you haven’t seen anything different. The reality, though, is that prior to government involvement, the price of medicine was a lot lower. Here, for example, is an accounting of a live birth in 1941.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff112.html

In the same way, the bills for my birth (1969) and my brother’s (1971) are about $1000 then, or about $6000 today.

Real bills for a C section birth today are about four to five times that amount. Yes, you get more care in some ways, but that much? This is what you get when you let government into the mix.

I’ve come to the conclusion we’re entering a tautology with Bubba.
Gov interference is bad.
Gov non-interference is bad.

So… what then?
Corporate subsidized health care is bad (even though its a benefit, to encourage me to work at company a, b, or c. Bubba forgets, imo, that healthcare subsidized by your workplace is not required and not everybody gets it.)

And I’m not even going to get into national vs. regional health insurance (e.g. my company is national, hence use of BC/BS. Cheaper then using multiple regionals like Medica.)

So in short… all I can glean from Bubba’s point is.. I should quit my job and find one with the health insurance I need. Regardless of the other ramifications.

Next up… best cardboard box for inclement weather.

Oh, you mean Kareem Abdul Jabar and Donald Trump? These are not examples of corporate executives, bubba. An ex-basketball star who mismanaged his finances and an ego-maniacal entrepreneur are not what we’re talking about. So, sorry, you didn’t. You can definitely try again though!

My grandfather (who worked for GM most of his life after emigrating to the states) has seen his pension disappear the last couple of years (as in terminated). Tell him that an executive’s million-dollar base salary is something to scoff at cause there’s no bonus attached to it *this year* and see if he doesn’t smack you. That, buckaroo, is called loosing one’s shirt. Is there anyone in GM’s executive circle who has zero dollars of any sort of income as a result of their financial troubles? Yes, it’s a slap on the wrist/”bad job!” to not get that bonus at the end of the fiscal year as an exec, but who’s arguing that? We’re arguing that it doesn’t constitute loosing one’s shirt. Missing the point is turning into your MO.

Checkbook, you are aware that I’m primarily referring to paying the bill, right[?]”

pcomeau, it doesn’t matter what YOUR heart disease comes from in this matter. Rather, it matters why your provider thinks they can charge more than Blue Cross is willing to pay.

One should also ask why is it that Blue Cross feels they need not pay the fair market value of a given medical service? Perhaps more importantly, how does this argument of yours reconcile with your arguments elsewhere on this blog regarding let-the-free-markets-roll-sans-regulation. Do you want someone to regulate what providers are able to charge for various procedures/services? Sounds here like yes, but that goes against what you’ve said elsewhere. I’m confused!

Donald Trump’s business filed for bankruptcy.

I never saw him driving a ‘79 Pinto.

Reality is that no matter what level of income one attains, more or less will influence behavior. And hey–I’ve given you some examples of people who literally have gone broke due to bad business decisions. It’s a reality that government workers generally don’t face. Rather, they get their pensions no matter what.

It affects the quality of their decisions, too.

Correct in the industry this is known as an Explanation of Benefits or simply EOB.

Fairly standard procedure now a days, actually standard since at leas ‘98 (wife used to work in Fairview’s billing dept. back then.)

Yes, it’s hard for ordinary earners like myself to understand how someone would have “need” with a million dollar salary, but reality is that it works.

What works?? What does this even have to do with the question of whether executives “loose their shirts” (your words) when the companies they steer don’t perform? Nada, I’m not sorry to say. Please, please, please try to stay on topic. Re: Seagate specifically… the latest data I was able to dig up regarding top execs’ base annual salaries was something in the neighborhood of over 2.25 million shared among the top three executive officers (the CEO pulling in about a mil). Even without the bonuses, explain to me how this constitutes loosing one’s shirt.

Incorrect. As mentioned before (by pcomeau?), insurance companies send patients a “non-bill” itemizing what was paid for, what is the patient’s responsibility (if any) and what the price agreed to pay in total was.

Moreover, you are grossly oversimplifying the situation. A person’s need to visit a medical practitioner is not comprable to a person’s want of a consumer product. More importantly, your suggestion necessarily cuts the poor out of the equation when it comes to who will have access to medical care. Does a heart by-pass cost what it does because of “inflated demand” alone? No. I’m certain there is a basic price for the cost of the doctors, needed equipment and procedure itself ; and I’m equally certain that it isn’t something the average american (much less poor american) can afford out of pocket. I’ll be the 2nd or 3rd person here to quote Plan B: “Conservatives consistently underestimate the level of unjust suffering in the world because they assume everyone is as lucky as they are, or they negate the role that luck and others’ help has played in their lives.”

Bubba, why do you feel that those less fortunate deserve lesser or no medical care at all?

Yes, it’s hard for ordinary earners like myself to understand how someone would have “need” with a million dollar salary, but reality is that it works.

One bit part of this is that there are millions of people who have “earned” their heart disease through obesity and smoking, but will never receive the bill for the cost of their treatment.

Along those lines, financial incentives work. Just ask someone whose job is to sell Hummers in an age of $4/gallon gasoline. Chevy just cut truck production by about half, as did Toyota and Ford.

Government intervention (things I’ve listed and more) prevent the patient from seeing the bill, and hence the price of care is inflated by demand that otherwise wouldn’t be there.

But neither really affects an execs bottom line in the negative. If their base salary is not cut (and it rarely is) there is no loss. Just loss of potential profit (which, if they’re so smart, they don’t include when creating a budget. kKnda like realized vs. unrealized gains.)

On the health front:
What implications? We’re talking simple negotiations between two companies. If they don’t reach a deal I pay for it. I loose my doctor and have to find a new one, most likely doubling my drive time to go see them.

Yes my employer covers part of my insurance, but again that has nothing to do with the BC/BS vs Fairview issue.

So please explain your reasoning… I’m not a smoker. My need for a cardiologist stems from a childhood birth defect. The defect itself based on random happenstance (e.g. nothing the mother does or doesn’t do causes it. Just pure chance.) So I don’t know where the smokers tangent is coming from. Let alone talking existing programs vs. creating something new that could help people.

Executives tend not to do so as much–like most of us, they put aside money in financial instruments not linked to their primary business. That noted, can we seriously claim that the executives of a company whose profitability and stock price are sliding are not taking a financial hit? That, say, the executives at GM aren’t taking a big hit from that company’s lack of profitability and stock slide? That, say, Seagate execs didn’t take a hit with no bonuses last year, and a sliding stock price that erased the value of their recent stock options?

And your cardiologist, pcomeau? Well, consider the implications of Medicare, Medicaid, MNCare, employer paid healthcare, and HMOs, all created by governent. A huge portion of obese, sedentary smokers know that they pay the same for health insurance whether they shape up or not. Think that might move the demand curve a bit? Do ya think that if they had to pay a bigger share of the costs, they might be more likely to ditch the coffin nails, eat a salad, and take a walk?