http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Morning-Vid-Limbaugh-Says-American-Health-Care-Just-Dandy-2070
"Based on what happened to me here, I don't think there's one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine, just dandy."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the arrogant pr*** thinks he got treated just like anybody else.
(http://www.threedonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ostrich-head-in-sand-sign.gif)
.... and he says people should go to the hospital the first time they have chest pains. Well, duh.
That's the problem. Tens of millions of Americans can't do that.... or don't do that..... because they're in fear of how much their doctor bills will run.
I too "heart" our status quo healthcare.
Quote from: USRufnex on January 04, 2010, 04:47:30 PM
.... and he says people should go to the hospital the first time they have chest pains. Well, duh.
That's the problem. Tens of millions of Americans can't do that.... or don't do that..... because they're in fear of how much their doctor bills will run.
Tens of millions don't go to the hospital because they have chest pains, reeeeeaaaaally????
Do hyperbole much? Exaggerate lately?
You think I'm going to be thinking about deductible and co-pays if it feels like an anvil landed on my chest? F*ck no.
You are aware there are people quite capable of paying for their medical care who simply choose not to, yes? Spend a few years in credit and collections and you'll get a better insight into situations other than the ones you are personally familiar with, and those paraded out as "typical" in the liberal blogosphere.
Separate thought here after throwing some gasoline on Ruf.
I got my insurance statement for my recent shoulder MRI. The original charge was $1600. The agreement with my insurer brought that down by $910, of that they paid $550. My personal responsibility? $137. I suspect my neck MRI will cost the same. (Pain/nerve/numbness issues).
How do pre-negotiated rates by insurers raise the cost of healthcare? I really don't get that. If you pay cash for a procedure without insurance, they will give you a better rate on the procedure because they anticipate at the full procedure cost, the cost of collecting on the medical bill.
FWIW, I'd already burned through a $1000 deductible earlier in the year for a dislocation of the other shoulder. Out of that I negotiated personally a lower amount with St. Johns for offering to pay up immediately when they finally figured out what my insurance benefit was going to cover and what they could still charge me. IIRC- that saved me another 20%.
Someone explain how insurance companies negotiating down rates raises the cost or does anything vastly different than Medicare attempts to do with HC providers?
Only time I went to the ER I sat for hours and tons of uninsured people complaining of chest pains, numbness, etc and got seen. My complaint (injured eye) was ranked in priority below chest pains so after waiting about 4 hours and being told it would at least be another 2 or 3, I went over to an urgent care that was getting ready to open.
ER's do not deny service to anyone regardless of ability to pay and chest pains is one of the complaints that gets you the most attention. This is the wrong one to harp on.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2010, 10:17:40 PM
I got my insurance statement for my recent shoulder MRI. The original charge was $1600. The agreement with my insurer brought that down by $910, of that they paid $550. My personal responsibility? $137. I suspect my neck MRI will cost the same. (Pain/nerve/numbness issues).
So what's wrong with your neck? I don't like the sound of that.
Quote from: guido911 on January 04, 2010, 06:09:53 PM
I too "heart" our status quo healthcare.
Makin you money every day, I bet you love it.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2010, 10:17:40 PM
Separate thought here after throwing some gasoline on Ruf.
I got my insurance statement for my recent shoulder MRI. The original charge was $1600. The agreement with my insurer brought that down by $910, of that they paid $550. My personal responsibility? $137. I suspect my neck MRI will cost the same. (Pain/nerve/numbness issues).
How do pre-negotiated rates by insurers raise the cost of healthcare? I really don't get that. If you pay cash for a procedure without insurance, they will give you a better rate on the procedure because they anticipate at the full procedure cost, the cost of collecting on the medical bill.
FWIW, I'd already burned through a $1000 deductible earlier in the year for a dislocation of the other shoulder. Out of that I negotiated personally a lower amount with St. Johns for offering to pay up immediately when they finally figured out what my insurance benefit was going to cover and what they could still charge me. IIRC- that saved me another 20%.
Someone explain how insurance companies negotiating down rates raises the cost or does anything vastly different than Medicare attempts to do with HC providers?
I believe in Japan the average MRI cost about 12 dollars. No waiting, no deductible.
Quote from: sgrizzle on January 05, 2010, 07:07:43 AM
ER's do not deny service to anyone regardless of ability to pay and chest pains is one of the complaints that gets you the most attention. This is the wrong one to harp on.
Pretty much the only industry left that offers instant, unconditional credit.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 05, 2010, 09:08:39 AM
I believe in Japan the average MRI cost about 12 dollars. No waiting, no deductible.
I would imagine that $12 MRI is also heavily subsidized by taxes.
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Japan_Future_Health_Care.asp
You wind up paying for it one way or another, the only difference is how your subsidy is pre-paid. Via taxes or premiums to an insurer.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2010, 09:43:34 AM
I would imagine that $12 MRI is also heavily subsidized by taxes.
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Japan_Future_Health_Care.asp
You wind up paying for it one way or another, the only difference is how your subsidy is pre-paid. Via taxes or premiums to an insurer.
The actual cost of an MRI in Japan, the cost, not the copay, is $160, vs $1700 in the United States. No subsidies on either side.
Interesting story on the topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120545569
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2010, 09:39:49 AM
Pretty much the only industry left that offers instant, unconditional credit.
The only industry whose credit offers are directly linked to patient well-being, and possibly mortality.
Quote from: swake on January 05, 2010, 10:03:19 AM
The actual cost of an MRI in Japan, the cost, not the copay, is $160, vs $1700 in the United States. No subsidies on either side.
Interesting story on the topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120545569
Here's a story about the Japanese health care system in general.
QuoteFor generations, Japan has achieved its successes by maintaining a vise-like grip on costs. After hard bargaining with medical providers every two years, the government sets a price for treatment and drugs -- and tolerates no fudging.
As a result, most Japanese doctors make far less money than their U.S. counterparts. Administrative costs are four times lower than they are in the United States, in part because insurance companies do not set rates for treatment or deny claims. By law, they cannot make profits or advertise to attract low-risk, high-profit clients.
To keep costs down, Japan has made tradeoffs in other areas -- sometimes to the detriment of patients. Some are merely irritating, such as routine hour-long waits before doctor appointments. But others involve worrisome questions about quality control and gaps in treatment for urgent care.
Japanese hospitals experience a "crowding out" effect, with space for emergency care and serious medical conditions sometimes overwhelmed by a flood of patients seeking routine treatment, said Naohiro Yashiro, a professor of economics and health-care expert at International Christian University in Tokyo.
"Patients are treated too equally," he said. "Beds are occupied by less-urgent cases, and there are no penalties for those who over-use the system."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/06/AR2009090601630.html
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2010, 10:17:40 PM
Someone explain how insurance companies negotiating down rates raises the cost or does anything vastly different than Medicare attempts to do with HC providers?
From what I can gather, the "negotiating down" process is broken. In some markets a single insurer holds a virtual monopoly on coverage, while in other markets two or more insurers share -- and possibly collude -- on pricing. I know I've been surprised to find out how few players there are in insurance markets are across the country, including in Oklahoma. Lack of competition alone could account for some of it.
Quote from: sgrizzle on January 05, 2010, 07:07:43 AM
Only time I went to the ER I sat for hours and tons of uninsured people complaining of chest pains, numbness, etc and got seen. My complaint (injured eye) was ranked in priority below chest pains so after waiting about 4 hours and being told it would at least be another 2 or 3, I went over to an urgent care that was getting ready to open.
ER's do not deny service to anyone regardless of ability to pay and chest pains is one of the complaints that gets you the most attention. This is the wrong one to harp on.
ER access is not a substitute for a primary care physician and regular checkups. Having people wait until their medical issues are life threatening is worse for the indigent and worse for those who end up picking up the tab for the indigent. (Which usually isn't those of you with insurance, it's the self payers)
Our
medicine is among the best in the world. Our
business of medicine is among the worst in the world. That's what people like Rush (and most people who have insurance) don't get.
Actually, I'm not feeling charitable today, Rush knows better but doesn't care.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2010, 09:39:49 AM
Pretty much the only industry left that offers instant, unconditional credit.
You ever go to the doctor's office and leave your heath insurance card at home?
Try it sometime.
When I went to St Francis Imaging, they asked for $500 right then and there. They had my BC/BS card in front of them.......
You realize that ER's have collections depts, don't you?
And they charge a TON of money if you don't have insurance or medicare negotiating on your behalf.
You realize we have a big problem in this country with citizens who are forced into medical bankruptcies, don't you?
What do you want ER's to do? Deny someone care who's been in a car accident/shooting, etc. because the "paying people" should go first?
Do you really want
that for our country?
Hyperbole? Really?
TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS CANNOT AFFORD HEALTHCARE BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO THEIR EMPLOYER.
No job? Don't get sick.
That's not hyperbole.
That's FACT.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2010, 10:06:42 PM
Tens of millions don't go to the hospital because they have chest pains, reeeeeaaaaally????
Do hyperbole much? Exaggerate lately?
You think I'm going to be thinking about deductible and co-pays if it feels like an anvil landed on my chest? F*ck no.
No, I am not exaggerating, Mr. Head-in-the-sand.
If you had chest pains, how bad were they?
Did Rush think he was having a heart attack?
Or was he just being a wuss?
As a HUMAN BEING, I understand that if I had chest pains but didn't feel like "an anvil landed on my chest," I wouldn't go to a doctor if I didn't have insurance. Millions of Americans have had to go through these kinds of problems.....
Why? Because if you are uninsured, they ask you to give them money now, and will take everything you have later.
So, you wait until it feels like "an anvil landed on my chest," then you go to the emergency room.
Then the hospital charges you more money than you could possibly pay.... then you declare bankruptcy and nobody gets any money..... nobody. That's the status quo if we do nothing.....
There, feel better now? ::)
Quote from: we vs us on January 05, 2010, 11:52:56 AM
From what I can gather, the "negotiating down" process is broken. In some markets a single insurer holds a virtual monopoly on coverage, while in other markets two or more insurers share -- and possibly collude -- on pricing. I know I've been surprised to find out how few players there are in insurance markets are across the country, including in Oklahoma. Lack of competition alone could account for some of it.
Now wait, I thought the argument was that too many insurers
raises the cost of claims processing because of differing paperwork for
too many insurers. Insurance companies lose money on claims. They aren't going to collude to raise claim prices, if anything they want to pay out less so they will negotiate lower rates.
Does anyone have a clue exactly what the government thinks it is going to achieve that is one iota different than the system is now?
We have had previous discussions on the lower cost of healthcare as a percent of GDP in other countries (ergo lower equipment costs, lower drug costs, lower procedure costs) before. I've posited that the U.S. subsidizes lower cost healthcare for the rest of the world by the higher rates we do pay for R & D, etc. plus a more proactive approach to health in other countries, and that it's not necessarily a socialized approach which has made it less of an expenditure for other countries. After reading the NPR excerpt Swake posted, that pretty much makes my assumption that the U.S. medical consumer is helping to subsidize lower equipment costs for other countries. How to make other countries shoulder their fair share of the cost is beyond me, but this is something to consider rather than a knee-jerk reaction that our government should just take over HC and arbitrarily tell free-market companies what they should be allowed to make on their goods and services.
"...a knee-jerk reaction that our government should just take over HC and arbitrarily tell free-market companies what they should be allowed to make on their goods and services."
Government isn't "taking over healthcare."
Heck, we won't even get a watered down "public option."
Hyperbole much? :D
Quote from: USRufnex on January 05, 2010, 12:26:06 PM
You ever go to the doctor's office and leave your heath insurance card at home?
Try it sometime.
When I went to St Francis Imaging, they asked for $500 right then and there. They had my BC/BS card in front of them.......
You realize that ER's have collections depts, don't you?
And they charge a TON of money if you don't have insurance or medicare negotiating on your behalf.
You realize we have a big problem in this country with citizens who are forced into medical bankruptcies, don't you?
What do you want ER's to do? Deny someone care who's been in a car accident/shooting, etc. because the "paying people" should go first?
Do you really want that for our country?
Hyperbole? Really?
TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS CANNOT AFFORD HEALTHCARE BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO THEIR EMPLOYER.
No job? Don't get sick.
That's not hyperbole.
That's FACT.
Yes, HYPERBOLE. And outright LIES!!!
The FACT is that federal law MANDATES emergency room care for those who CANNOT PAY FOR IT!!!! People in car accidents, experiencing chest pain, or a gunshot wound do not go unseen, THEY GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE!!!
Health care facilities are remunerated for those who cannot pay by charging the paying public a higher rate for their healthcare and tax write-offs on bad debt.
REALITY DENIER!!!
I've been to the ER with chest/abdominal pain at 4am (to this day they still have no idea what it was all about). They sure as hell weren't asking me to reach for my checkbook nor concerned with who my insurance company was until they knew I wasn't going to crash on them. Where do you get this crap? Daily Koz?
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!
Helllooooooo.
When you have an emergency, you can get EMERGENCY CARE.
Why else do you think people go to an urban hospital and "pretend" to have an emergency?
Per usual, you argue all over the map, yet REFUSE TO SUPPORT ANY DEM EFFORT TO REFORM THE SYSTEM.
Typical partisan BS from you Conan.
You have the nerve to believe that "preventative care" is something that involves exercise and diet, yet in this kind of system Mr Limbaugh should be charged out the wazoo for insurance because he's FAT and smokes CIGARS.... talk about a pre-existing condition....
Do you just hate the fat, middle-aged poor men and women with diabetes because you've judged them unfit for healthcare?
If they seek medical care BEFORE they have a catastrophe, they might be put on a better diet or have a problem diagnosed BEFORE it becomes an emergency, costs the hospital more $$$, the doctors more $$$, and the patient more $$$ they can't even pay..... then you've ruined their financial life with a bankruptcy.... EVERYBODY LOSES!.....
Status quo is no longer unacceptable.
".... and he says people should go to the hospital the first time they have chest pains. Well, duh.
That's the problem. Tens of millions of Americans can't do that.... or don't do that..... because they're in fear of how much their doctor bills will run."
Who is arguing all over the map??
Do they or don't they go to the ER??
Have fun talking to yourself.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2010, 04:08:14 PM
I've been to the ER with chest/abdominal pain at 4am (to this day they still have no idea what it was all about). They sure as hell weren't asking me to reach for my checkbook nor concerned with who my insurance company was until they knew I wasn't going to crash on them. Where do you get this crap? Daily Koz?
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!
I once had to take a roommate to the ER when he had a spontaneous pneumothorax. They looked at him, decided he wasn't having a heart attack, and promptly directed him to the money desk and asked him how he would be paying.
They couldn't have refused him treatment, as it is a potentially life threatening condition, but that's no solution. The hospitals are losing money thanks to declining insurance payouts and more bad debt thanks to the high unemployment rate. It's too expensive to force this cost onto hospitals without compensation and not do anything to address medical problems in the indigent before they become ER-worthy.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2010, 04:43:40 PM
".... and he says people should go to the hospital the first time they have chest pains. Well, duh.
That's the problem. Tens of millions of Americans can't do that.... or don't do that..... because they're in fear of how much their doctor bills will run."
Who is arguing all over the map??
Do they or don't they go to the ER??
Have fun talking to yourself.
They don't go to the ER, because "chest pains" don't mean the same thing to everyone.
You make this argument because you've decided to find something I wrote to TRY to exploit.
I've had chest pains. In my 30s. I assumed it was acid reflux. I didn't have insurance, so I didn't go to the doctor. Now that I no longer sing opera, I have a "real job" that offers me the option to go to the doctor without having to pay a bill of at least $300 bucks for a 15-minute office visit to a doctor who doesn't really do anything.... or I guess I coulda gone to the ER..... ::)
But if my story is ever told, you'd accuse liberals of "exploiting it."
You use the same story with my cancer when you insist that me and people like me have these stories exploited by DailyKOS, etc... then, your buddy Gweed acts like I'm trying to use my disease to win an argument....
Geez.
Have fun playing with yourselves.... dittoheads.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2010, 05:17:49 PM
I once had to take a roommate to the ER when he had a spontaneous pneumothorax. They looked at him, decided he wasn't having a heart attack, and promptly directed him to the money desk and asked him how he would be paying.
Yep. I remember those same stories when I was in college.
Took more than one person to the hospital and had to watch that song-and-dance.
Health care reform bill could aid 237,000 Utahnshttp://www.deseretnews.com/article/705351960/Report-Health-reform-would-help-uninsured-Utahns.html?linkTrack=rss-30
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2010, 05:17:49 PM
I once had to take a roommate to the ER when he had a spontaneous pneumothorax. They looked at him, decided he wasn't having a heart attack, and promptly directed him to the money desk and asked him how he would be paying.
Are you serious? The hospital actually asked your roommate how he was going to pay for its professional medical services? Oh, the horror!
As for emergency rooms losing money, your list omits the damage illegal aliens have wreaked by using these medical assets as their personal primary clinic (how many ers and trauma centers have closed because of the EMTALA mandates), or the mass numbers of "patients" using the er as a narcotic dispensary, or the billions doctors spend practicing defensive medicine to ward off predatory personal injury lawyers (although there is newly enacted tort reform which could reduce lawsuits). As you can see, it's not just those poor unemployed victims or evil insurance companies that cause high hospital costs.
Now, where do I get my information? Is it from taking a friend to the er or I had a bad hospital experience? Nope. I worked in an er and in a hospital for over four years and most here know I have family that currently work in ers.
Quote from: guido911 on January 05, 2010, 06:03:12 PM
Are you serious? The hospital actually asked your roommate how he was going to pay for its professional medical services? Oh, the horror!
As for emergency rooms losing money, your list omits the damage illegal aliens have wreaked by using these medical assets as their personal primary clinic (how many ers and trauma centers have closed because of the EMTALA mandates), or the
So it's only illegal immigrants who use the ER that way? Poor legals don't? What world are you living in?
And my problem isn't that they asked him how he was going to pay, it was the order of operations. It seems like when someone presents with severe pain, perhaps an actual examination rather than a cursory visual inspection is in order prior to working out the billing details. Or they could, you know, multitask and do them both at the same time...
Making you sit around for 20 minutes while they do whatever they do in their computer before being treated when there's nobody else being treated doesn't seem like the right way to go about it.
Quote from: USRufnex on January 05, 2010, 04:15:08 PM
yet REFUSE TO SUPPORT ANY DEM EFFORT TO REFORM THE SYSTEM.
You will find this difficult to comprehend but there are people that truly want health care reform that believe the present Democratic Party presentation is not the correct answer.
The Democrats have been just as non-cooperative as the Republicans.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2010, 07:14:18 PM
So it's only illegal immigrants who use the ER that way? Poor legals don't? What world are you living in?
And my problem isn't that they asked him how he was going to pay, it was the order of operations. It seems like when someone presents with severe pain, perhaps an actual examination rather than a cursory visual inspection is in order prior to working out the billing details. Or they could, you know, multitask and do them both at the same time...
Making you sit around for 20 minutes while they do whatever they do in their computer before being treated when there's nobody else being treated doesn't seem like the right way to go about it.
Unless you worked in an er at some point in your life, the world I used to live in when I WORKED in the er is damn sure more qualified to speak on the subject of ers than yours. As to who uses an er for primary care (illegals vs. legals), you know damned well my original comment had to do with the costs of the delivery of health care and how you left out many factors in the post I responded to. If you have never heard/read that the burden illegals place on this country's ers and trauma centers, you certainly don't live in this world.
As for your order of operations quip, I do not recall one time when a patient presented tothe er via ambulance was ever sent to work out the billing details at another desk without being seen. Your beef appears to be with the triage system, "worst first" sort of concept I believe you referred to as a "cursory visual inspection". Sorry bub, that's the way it will always be. The fact that your roommate's SP was not detected during triage (by I assume by a provider just listening to breath sounds) is unfortunate but SP is a very unusual condition particularly in young people. But you apparently believe that only after an expensive battery of tests, x-rays, radiological scans and diagnoses are completed is when the timing of discussing billing acceptable. Following your belief to a very real conclusion, it is quite conceivable that obtaining the diagnosis first before billing is discussed would encourage patients to just walk out after having been treated or diagnosed with something minor.
Now, I do agree that in certain circumstances multitasking is a good idea. That happened all the time when patients who walk in with gravely serious medical conditions needing immediate attention. I recall several times when I physically carried in my arms or over my shoulder walking wounded that I snared while they were trying to check in/provide billing information and obtained the same after we got them stabilized.
When you go to an er waiting room, you have no real idea what is going on behind that big door leading to the treatment area. Here's another not-so-funny war story, one night an angry patient fed up for having to wait in the waiting area a little longer than she wanted managed to sneak in and complain at me while I was in a treatment room--not knowing I was providing post mortem (resulting from violent trauma) care to a recently deceased young person for viewing by his family. I can guaranty you that angered patient will never do that again. Point being, er physicians and staff are not Burger King or any other place that let's it have it your way.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2010, 05:17:49 PM
I once had to take a roommate to the ER when he had a spontaneous pneumothorax. They looked at him, decided he wasn't having a heart attack, and promptly directed him to the money desk and asked him how he would be paying.
They couldn't have refused him treatment, as it is a potentially life threatening condition, but that's no solution. The hospitals are losing money thanks to declining insurance payouts and more bad debt thanks to the high unemployment rate. It's too expensive to force this cost onto hospitals without compensation and not do anything to address medical problems in the indigent before they become ER-worthy.
So is it any mystery that they wanted to know his payment information? I can tell you from my personal experience working in credit and collections for several years that it's not just high unemployment which causes such a high charge off rate in the medical industry, though it's not helping these days. You bet there are people who cannot pay for healthcare. That's what Medicaid and programs like Sooner Care are for. However, there is a class of people who simply think there should be absolutely zero cost to their healthcare and refuse to pay a penny out of pocket for it, even when their insurance company is providing the majority of their care costs.
I certainly realize there are people who need healthcare through no fault or neglect of their own and they wind up in a bind. There are far worse things in this world than bankruptcy (which is an option if someone cannot pay their medical bills), like being paralyzed for life by an abdominal aneurysm, killed by a heart attack, etc. Your primary residence is exempt in a bankruptcy as is your car (so long as they are paid for or if you reaffirm with your lender). They will not throw you in prison for filing bankruptcy or simply stiffing a medical provider. There are many "medical bankruptcies" which also include things like a mortgage on a lake house, a boat, an RV, credit cards used for many things other than medical costs.
The fact is, we are guaranteed no more of a right to free health care than we are free food or a free car by the Constitution.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2010, 08:58:08 PM
So is it any mystery that they wanted to know his payment information? I can tell you from my personal experience working in credit and collections for several years that it's not just high unemployment which causes such a high charge off rate in the medical industry, though it's not helping these days. You bet there are people who cannot pay for healthcare. That's what Medicaid and programs like Sooner Care are for. However, there is a class of people who simply think there should be absolutely zero cost to their healthcare and refuse to pay a penny out of pocket for it, even when their insurance company is providing the majority of their care costs.
I certainly realize there are people who need healthcare through no fault or neglect of their own and they wind up in a bind. There are far worse things in this world than bankruptcy (which is an option if someone cannot pay their medical bills), like being paralyzed for life by an abdominal aneurysm, killed by a heart attack, etc. Your primary residence is exempt in a bankruptcy as is your car (so long as they are paid for or if you reaffirm with your lender). They will not throw you in prison for filing bankruptcy or simply stiffing a medical provider. There are many "medical bankruptcies" which also include things like a mortgage on a lake house, a boat, an RV, credit cards used for many things other than medical costs.
The fact is, we are guaranteed no more of a right to free health care than we are free food or a free car by the Constitution.
I was simply refuting the contention that payment doesn't come up initially upon arrival at the ER. It certainly gets discussed, and rather early on.
And FWIW, as it stands currently, if you're a single not-elderly not-disabled male (or childless female), SoonerCare/Medicaid has nothing for you. No matter how destitute you are, you're on the hook. The worst part is that it makes it harder (and more expensive) to get housing, a job, insurance, and many other things these days when you have collections bringing down your credit score. No matter how responsible you've been, if you're poor and can't afford private insurance and work for a company that either doesn't provide it at all or doesn't subsidize the group insurance, you'll be having a bad time when an uninsured driver hits you and injures you, or you get food poisoning from whatever restaurant or you just end up with a spontaneous pneumothorax despite being a relatively healthy nonsmoker.
The current system ruins people's lives in an unavoidable way (aside from being rich). That's not OK to me. I'm not sure what should be done about it, but surely there's a better system than what we're doing now.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2010, 10:01:15 PM
I was simply refuting the contention that payment doesn't come up initially upon arrival at the ER. It certainly gets discussed, and rather early on.
And FWIW, as it stands currently, if you're a single not-elderly not-disabled male (or childless female), SoonerCare/Medicaid has nothing for you. No matter how destitute you are, you're on the hook. The worst part is that it makes it harder (and more expensive) to get housing, a job, insurance, and many other things these days when you have collections bringing down your credit score. No matter how responsible you've been, if you're poor and can't afford private insurance and work for a company that either doesn't provide it at all or doesn't subsidize the group insurance, you'll be having a bad time when an uninsured driver hits you and injures you, or you get food poisoning from whatever restaurant or you just end up with a spontaneous pneumothorax despite being a relatively healthy nonsmoker.
The current system ruins people's lives in an unavoidable way (aside from being rich). That's not OK to me. I'm not sure what should be done about it, but surely there's a better system than what we're doing now.
Again, what are someone's priorities? How much risk are you willing to assume of your own? If you are 23 and believe your chances of needing major medical coverage are very slim, then chances are you won't pay for a private health insurance policy and will spend your resources on other things. However, I fail to see when there's suddenly a need for a doctor visit or ER visit that everyone else should be stuck paying for it because the said 23 year old failed to properly prioritize his/her financial and health priorities. If he/she does not have the money at the time services are due, if they will simply be up front with the provider, they CAN pay it out in regular installments with the provider and it will not go against their credit so long as they are dilligent in paying and don't let it go over to a collection agency.
I just found out yesterday that I will be having surgery next week on my left shoulder for a tear. It's a progressive issue that has nagged me for a long time and probably isn't helped by a lot of the physical activities I do and it is also probably partially due to genetics. Since my insurance year has rolled over, I will have a $1000 deductible and a co-pay on the surgery, anesthesiologist, surgeon, facility, etc. Why don't I just pass the hat and ask all of you guys to pay for my out of pocket costs? Why should I be responsible for them? I was hoping to go back to the British Virgin Islands this spring and that money sure would be handy for rum drinks and such, and I'd really rather not blow it on a medical procedure I need to live pain-free. I also need to finish trim and paint work on my house this spring as well and I'm hoping to buy another sailboat again soon. So whaddya say? Crickets?
My point is this: certainly I agree there are people who simply cannot afford healthcare and there are mechanisms already in place to make sure those who are not capable of paying can, in fact, get care, from Medicaid and Medicare, to state-sponsored programs, community charitable programs, payment plans, and right up to bankruptcy.
There are also a greater percentage of people who could pay for healthcare but choose other financial priorities and that percentage is a lot greater than most would believe. I have no problem with there being programs to help lower income people have good access to healthcare and looking at ways to lower healthcare costs.
This simply has become another hysteria issue much like global climate change where far more fear than an examination of reality and facts is being perpetrated on the masses in order to fulfill a campaign pledge of "healthcare reform". Better than 95% of the population will have no real clue of what all a final bill will contain, nor what that reform is. Ask a broad question like: "Do you want health care reform?" certainly a majority will answer yes. Ask people more specifically: "Do you want the government managing and having access to all your medical information as a result of health care reform?" and I'm sure there would be a resounding "NO!". This has far more to do with satisfying special interests who helped elect this class of Representatives and Senators and trying to retain seats in the next elections than it does altruistic motives in "fixing" health care.
Speaking to solutions from part of what you said, Nathan:
One solution I'd like to see is not weighing credit scores so heavily with medical collections which can raise the interest rate consumers pay for houses, cars, and open credit lines. I'd also like to see either limiting or banning outright, the use of credit reports in determining insurance rates for everything from life insurance to auto insurance. I simply fail to get the correlation between bad credit and someone being more of a claims risk for an auto or home insurance policy even though actuaries will argue this point. I think access to credit reports by employers should be limited strictly to those with some sort of fiduciary capacity within a company. Limiting employment or promotional opportunities based on credit is wrong and doesn't relate either unless someone handles money for a living.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2010, 10:01:15 PM
The current system ruins people's lives in an unavoidable way (aside from being rich). That's not OK to me. I'm not sure what should be done about it, but surely there's a better system than what we're doing now.
The current system
ruins saves people's lives in an unavoidable way (aside from being rich). That's not OK to me. I'm not sure what should be done about it, but surely there's a better system than what we're doing now.
fify
Quote from: Conan71 on January 06, 2010, 09:37:53 AM
Again, what are someone's priorities? How much risk are you willing to assume of your own? If you are 23 and believe your chances of needing major medical coverage are very slim, then chances are you won't pay for a private health insurance policy and will spend your resources on other things. However, I fail to see when there's suddenly a need for a doctor visit or ER visit that everyone else should be stuck paying for it because the said 23 year old failed to properly prioritize his/her financial and health priorities. If he/she does not have the money at the time services are due, if they will simply be up front with the provider, they CAN pay it out in regular installments with the provider and it will not go against their credit so long as they are dilligent in paying and don't let it go over to a collection agency.
I just found out yesterday that I will be having surgery next week on my left shoulder for a tear. It's a progressive issue that has nagged me for a long time and probably isn't helped by a lot of the physical activities I do and it is also probably partially due to genetics. Since my insurance year has rolled over, I will have a $1000 deductible and a co-pay on the surgery, anesthesiologist, surgeon, facility, etc. Why don't I just pass the hat and ask all of you guys to pay for my out of pocket costs? Why should I be responsible for them? I was hoping to go back to the British Virgin Islands this spring and that money sure would be handy for rum drinks and such, and I'd really rather not blow it on a medical procedure I need to live pain-free. I also need to finish trim and paint work on my house this spring as well and I'm hoping to buy another sailboat again soon. So whaddya say? Crickets?
My point is this: certainly I agree there are people who simply cannot afford healthcare and there are mechanisms already in place to make sure those who are not capable of paying can, in fact, get care, from Medicaid and Medicare, to state-sponsored programs, community charitable programs, payment plans, and right up to bankruptcy.
There are also a greater percentage of people who could pay for healthcare but choose other financial priorities and that percentage is a lot greater than most would believe. I have no problem with there being programs to help lower income people have good access to healthcare and looking at ways to lower healthcare costs.
Speaking to solutions from part of what you said, Nathan:
One solution I'd like to see is not weighing credit scores so heavily with medical collections which can raise the interest rate consumers pay for houses, cars, and open credit lines. I'd also like to see either limiting or banning outright, the use of credit reports in determining insurance rates for everything from life insurance to auto insurance. I simply fail to get the correlation between bad credit and someone being more of a claims risk for an auto or home insurance policy even though actuaries will argue this point. I think access to credit reports by employers should be limited strictly to those with some sort of fiduciary capacity within a company. Limiting employment or promotional opportunities based on credit is wrong and doesn't relate either unless someone handles money for a living.
Bankruptcy is not a health plan. You can only do it once every ten years. ;)
Also, just to clarify, the person I'm talking about was insured and had plenty of money in the bank for his deductible.
Moreover, I've seen doctors whose bills go to collections and on your credit report in under two weeks. It's ridiculous. (They're not all that way, but I've seen it personally) The only saving grace here is that under HIPPA, once you've repaid your debt they can't continue reporting the former medical collection. Great if your bill isn't 20 grand.
The fact of the matter is that many, if not most, low income people currently have very poor access to health care and very little help to pay for it. They get even less preventative care than the abysmal standard set by the insured in this country. Something should be done about it. I don't get the resistance, it's not as if you aren't already paying for their catastrophic care. You'd end up paying less if they'd get treated before it became a full on emergency requiring heroic measures to keep them alive.
And one reason you see so many people prioritizing some discretionary spending over health care? When you don't have enough money to pay the doctor either way, what difference does it make if you buy some yarn or whatever? When you're making $200 a week (or I suppose $250 these days), how exactly are you going to pay for insurance and still eat? Or worse, how are you going to pay an $25000 hospital bill when you let an ulcer go too long because you can't afford the $150 to see a doctor and you collapse and are rushed to the ER and immediately undergo emergency surgery? I suppose living on the streets and not eating for two years is a viable option.
Before you say "they should get a better job," you might consider that even if the specific person I'm speaking of improves their position in life, there will always be people making minimum wage. We can't just leave them to rot.
I guess I've just known too many people who the current system has completely and utterly failed to consider it anything but completely broken and in need of overhaul. As I said, I don't know what the fix is.
FWIW, I agree that the bill under consideration is completely sub-optimal. It barely falls into the better than nothing category. It's to be expected, though, given the amount of money the insurance companies have spent on lobbying and "donated" to various political campaigns in the last few months. It is better than nothing for the folks who are currently being left behind by our lack of a system.
And guido, our current system keeps (some) people alive, at the cost of medical bills that can never be paid by a large portion of those who get care.
Ironically, the stress of owing so much money makes future health problems even more likely.
Quote from: nathanm on January 06, 2010, 12:31:24 PM
And guido, our current system keeps (some) people alive, at the cost of medical bills that can never be paid by a large portion of those who get care.
Ironically, the stress of owing so much money makes future health problems even more likely.
Keeps "some" people alive? You are really reaching down into the depths of unbelievable ingratitude to people who keep more than "some" people alive. I cannot tell you how many people
I helped keep alive in my hospital days or the large number of people a close family member keeps alive each week. Your health care populism in this connection is bordering on insulting, but certainly beyond mindless, at this point. Feel free to keep reaching though.
Quote from: guido911 on January 06, 2010, 01:01:34 PM
Keeps "some" people alive? You are really reaching down into the depths of unbelievable ingratitude to people who keep more than "some" people alive. I cannot tell you how many people I helped keep alive in my hospital days or the large number of people a close family member keeps alive each week. Your health care populism in this connection is bordering on insulting, but certainly beyond mindless, at this point. Feel free to keep reaching though.
Your sense of entitlement about what people owe you for your service is mind-boggling. I'm a little astounded that your whole political philosophy is based around not feeling congratulated enough.
Quote from: we vs us on January 06, 2010, 01:10:01 PM
Your sense of entitlement about what people owe you for your service is mind-boggling. I'm a little astounded that your whole political philosophy is based around not feeling congratulated enough.
Who said anything about being "owe[d]" anything? I am tired of folks like Nate hammering our health care system and belittling the efforts of those who deliver health care. Period. But what should I expect (beyond a little astounded) from you and those like you whose political philosophy is based around not being given enough by other people.
Nathan, I understood that your friend had insurance and could pay the costs. At what point were they supposed to cull the necessary payment information from him? It sounds like they made a sound triage evaluation and decision, so what's the problem?
You can provide the basic preventative care and still people will neglect to take advantage of it. You cannot force anyone to take a proactive approach to their own health care if they don't want to do it.
Start here and tell me how limited the choices are for free healthcare in Tulsa.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:rgQUrfkRnhYJ:www.csctulsa.org/images/Tulsa%2520Area%2520Free%2520Clinic%2520Coalition%2520Directory%2520-%2520April%252020071.doc+OSU+Tulsa+free+clinics&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.mortonhealth.org/locations.html
http://tulsa.ou.edu/medicine/bedlam/clinics.htm
From OU-
"OUR CLINICS SERVE
Medically underserved areas and populations with
Low primary care physician-to-population ratio
High infant mortality rate
High percent of population living below Federal Poverty Level
Health provider shortage areas
Shortage of primary medical service providers
Shortage of primary care dentists
Shortage of psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and clinical social workers
Here's Dallas:
http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/vcamp.php?cityid=6
Do the same for KC, New York, Miami, LA, etc. ad nauseum.
Oh wait, I know, the argument now is that this is somehow substandard healthcare and that everyone deserves the same treatment options as those more financially capable. **smacks forehead**
I could spend all day Googling this, but I'll let you. I simply refuse to buy into the need for government control of health care based on a bunch of ignorance of what really is available versus what is characterized as being available by a bunch of corrupt politicians and lazy investigative news media who are standing behind a half-assed bill which essentially does nothing but spend more money on more bureaucracy without any regard for patient care.
Again- there is no lack of health care in this country for those who really want it or need it. Including illegal aliens who have never paid a penny into our tax system (yes I realize there are illegals who pay in via payroll taxes, there are those who work cash only jobs and pay zilch).
Quote from: guido911 on January 06, 2010, 01:01:34 PM
Keeps "some" people alive? You are really reaching down into the depths of unbelievable ingratitude
I think you're reaching down into the depths of your imagination to misread what I'm writing. I have never called into question the utility or skill of doctors and nurses themselves. I have written about the shady business practices of a small number of doctors in a few areas of our country, and I have written about the business practices of the insurance companies and hospitals, who often deserve no adulation.
When my SO tells me that my breath stinks, that's not belittling anything else I may be or have done. You seem to think that having a flaw diminishes your achievements in other areas. That is not the case. I can simultaneously be appreciative of the doctors who have prolonged so many of my family members' lives (paid for by Medicare and Tricare, mainly..great if you can get it), and take note that millions of my fellow countrymen simply don't have reasonable access to medical care. At no time did I blame "those who deliver healthcare." I blame those who manage the health care business.
The way you seem to take offense at any criticism whatsoever, no matter how unrelated to yourself, is puzzling.
Lastly, what I want is not to be "given" something. I want our health care system to be fixed such that it becomes more affordable to use healthcare and such that everyone is able to get it when they need it. I prefer the destitute not get me sick with their untreated illnesses and run up high ER bills that I have to pay for because they can't afford to get their condition treated before it becomes an emergency situation. I'm selfish that way.
I want us all to be able to pay for our healthcare, not have it given to me. Of course, if my SO were to lose her job, I'd like for her to be able to keep her coverage while she finds another, too. I'd like that for you, too.
Quote from: guido911 on January 06, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Who said anything about being "owe[d]" anything? I am tired of folks like Nate hammering our health care system and belittling the efforts of those who deliver health care. Period. But what should I expect (beyond a little astounded) from you and those like you whose political philosophy is based around not being given enough by other people.
While your chest thumping about the "efforts of those who deliver health care" is nice, you are personally being enriched by the current system and your position on health care reform is more about your own cash bottom line than anyone's good health.
Our healthcare system has degenerated into being for the enrichment of doctors, insurance companies and big pharma and is not about healthcare. We spend far more than any other nation on healthcare for worse outcomes and less coverage. It's not about "paying for other people" it about the fact that our costs are out of sight and the healthcare systems goals are not in line with patient needs or the nation's best interest. We don't have the world's best healthcare system, far from it, we just have the costliest.
Quote from: swake on January 06, 2010, 01:35:02 PM
While your chest thumping about the "efforts of those who deliver health care" is nice, you are personally being enriched by the current system and your position on health care reform is more about your own cash bottom line than anyone's good health.
Our healthcare system has degenerated into being for the enrichment of doctors, insurance companies and big pharma and is not about healthcare. We spend far more than any other nation on healthcare for worse outcomes and less coverage. It's not about "paying for other people" it about the fact that our costs are out of sight and the healthcare systems goals are not in line with patient needs or the nation's best interest. We don't have the world's best healthcare system, far from it, we just have the costliest.
There you go again, health care needs reforming because of those greedy doctors, evil insurance companies, and evil big pharma. More populist crap, all the while ignoring the other factors contributing to health care costs such as trial lawyers and patient abuse. As for your attack on doctors, tell you what, put your life on hold and why don't you go to college for four years, then medical school for four years (both at massive financial cost btw), then residency for fours years, then bear the massive expense of continuing education and licensing/credentialing, then pay medical malpractice insurance that costs more than most people earn in a year, then go to work every day thinking that if you make a mistake someone could die (happen much in your present profession, how about your professions wevsus or ruf?), and then talk to us about healthcare degenerating into the enrichment of doctors. Simply stated, you have no freakin idea what you are talking about.
Now, do I believe some reform is necessary? Absolutely. I support tax free health care savings accounts, tort reform (which sorta cuts at your insipid profiteering bs), allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, allowing individuals/small companies to pool and buy insurance at group rates. I know, most of these are market-driven solutions and do not involve you receiving a hand out, but they would reduce costs and increase coverage.
Also, everyone here seems to forget that I supported Obama on s-chip (even though he financed it through a tobacco tax which resulted in taxing those earning less than the $250K which violated a campaign promise).
Quote from: nathanm on January 06, 2010, 01:33:53 PM
I think you're reaching down into the depths of your imagination to misread what I'm writing. I have never called into question the utility or skill of doctors and nurses themselves.
No, you just accuse them of being more interested in getting billing information over the treatment/health of the patient, rapidly sending bill collectors after non-paying patients, and minimizing the significant contribution they make in the form of saving more than just "some" lives. That's all.
Quote from: guido911 on January 06, 2010, 02:34:32 PM
Also, everyone here seems to forget that I supported Obama on s-chip...
Obama spooner.
It is just a matter of time before we persuade you to become a liberal.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 06, 2010, 02:48:30 PM
Obama spooner.
It is just a matter of time before we persuade you to become a liberal.
Post of the week :D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 06, 2010, 02:48:30 PM
Obama spooner.
It is just a matter of time before we persuade you to become a liberal.
Really funny. I also supported his trip to Iraq early in his tenure to visit the troops.
Quote from: guido911 on January 06, 2010, 02:44:52 PM
No, you just accuse them of being more interested in getting billing information over the treatment/health of the patient, rapidly sending bill collectors after non-paying patients, and minimizing the significant contribution they make in the form of saving more than just "some" lives. That's all.
You apparently have a hard time differentiating between care being delivered and billing. I labor under no such difficulty.
The system as it stands discourages people from seeking care even in emergency situations, hence only "some" people get care. Not because doctors refuse to treat them, but because the prospect of impossibly high medical bills discourage "some" people from seeking treatment.
Moreover, my anecdote did not illustrate that doctors are prioritizing payment over care, but that ER administrators are doing that, whether by design or accident. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Is it just me seeing this or...
(http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/goalposts_moving-back.bmp)
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 05, 2010, 08:12:30 PM
You will find this difficult to comprehend but there are people that truly want health care reform that believe the present Democratic Party presentation is not the correct answer.
The Democrats have been just as non-cooperative as the Republicans.
Is it just me seeing this, or......
(http://www.sportsposterwarehouse.com/catImages/peanutsnever-1.jpg)
Does Olympia Snowe look an awful lot like Lucy from Peanuts?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 06, 2010, 04:01:12 PM
Is it just me seeing this or...
(http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/goalposts_moving-back.bmp)
I'm seeing this, but I cannot differentiate very well:
(http://www.dianesabba.com/Photography/5%20Long%20Beach%20Marathon,%20California%202004/38%20Bicyling%20Backwards.jpg)
Quote from: USRufnex on January 05, 2010, 12:26:06 PM
You ever go to the doctor's office and leave your heath insurance card at home?
Try it sometime.
When I went to St Francis Imaging, they asked for $500 right then and there. They had my BC/BS card in front of them.......
You realize that ER's have collections depts, don't you?
And they charge a TON of money if you don't have insurance or medicare negotiating on your behalf.
You realize we have a big problem in this country with citizens who are forced into medical bankruptcies, don't you?
What do you want ER's to do? Deny someone care who's been in a car accident/shooting, etc. because the "paying people" should go first?
Do you really want that for our country?
Hyperbole? Really?
TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS CANNOT AFFORD HEALTHCARE BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO THEIR EMPLOYER.
No job? Don't get sick.
That's not hyperbole.
That's FACT.
Damn those leeches at Saint Francis!
My determined deductible for my shoulder surgery is $500, according to the clerk I worked with.
They asked I pay $250 right then and there yesterday at my pre-op visit, or if I was incapable of doing that, they were willing to work that out with me. The nerve of those greedy people expecting to get paid for a service rendered!!! It's a total crime that I will have to pay the remainder of my deductible and co-pays (per my contract with my health insurer). I'd hate to think anyone deserves to be compensated and perhaps even make a profit in the process of helping me live pain-free. What a travesty!
I'll also bet two options are available to me after the surgery:
One is I can offer to pay all remaining co-pays and deductibles at once and ask for a discount which they will probably accept. Or, pre-arrange to pay them out over a period of months using an auto-draft from my debit card or one of my bank accounts- and no, that does not go on your credit report as a medical collection.
Heartless bastards...I want my "free" health care!
You poor soul conan. I'll have usruf visit you in post op to give you a big hug.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2010, 10:36:12 AM
Damn those leeches at Saint Francis!
My determined deductible for my shoulder surgery is $500, according to the clerk I worked with.
They asked I pay $250 right then and there yesterday at my pre-op visit, or if I was incapable of doing that, they were willing to work that out with me. The nerve of those greedy people expecting to get paid for a service rendered!!! It's a total crime that I will have to pay the remainder of my deductible and co-pays (per my contract with my health insurer). I'd hate to think anyone deserves to be compensated and perhaps even make a profit in the process of helping me live pain-free. What a travesty!
I'll also bet two options are available to me after the surgery:
One is I can offer to pay all remaining co-pays and deductibles at once and ask for a discount which they will probably accept. Or, pre-arrange to pay them out over a period of months using an auto-draft from my debit card or one of my bank accounts- and no, that does not go on your credit report as a medical collection.
Heartless bastards...I want my "free" health care!
You shouldn't be sarcastic about this....they suck. Wish this demon could've advised you prior to your surgery. Well, good luck anyway.
How'd you injure your shoulder? Let me guess, trick fawkin...little old for that...guess you're finding out the hard way.
Happy new year and best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Quote from: FOTD on January 12, 2010, 02:31:51 PM
You shouldn't be sarcastic about this....they suck. Wish this demon could've advised you prior to your surgery. Well, good luck anyway.
How'd you injure your shoulder? Let me guess, trick fawkin...little old for that...guess you're finding out the hard way.
Happy new year and best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Where on earth have you been man? Long strange trip?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2010, 10:36:12 AM
Damn those leeches at Saint Francis!
My determined deductible for my shoulder surgery is $500, according to the clerk I worked with.
They asked I pay $250 right then and there yesterday at my pre-op visit, or if I was incapable of doing that, they were willing to work that out with me. The nerve of those greedy people expecting to get paid for a service rendered!!! It's a total crime that I will have to pay the remainder of my deductible and co-pays (per my contract with my health insurer). I'd hate to think anyone deserves to be compensated and perhaps even make a profit in the process of helping me live pain-free. What a travesty!
I'll also bet two options are available to me after the surgery:
One is I can offer to pay all remaining co-pays and deductibles at once and ask for a discount which they will probably accept. Or, pre-arrange to pay them out over a period of months using an auto-draft from my debit card or one of my bank accounts- and no, that does not go on your credit report as a medical collection.
Heartless bastards...I want my "free" health care!
Is your middle name, "Condescending?"
It's not about "free" health care.
It's about the haphazard way in which some doctors, clinics, and hospitals want their money upfront... I had a blizzard of bills to pay for my cancer surgery.... I wrote check after check after check... it didn't make any sense which ones wanted everything paid upfront and which ones wanted me to wait for a bill... and which ones would send a nasty letter out of the blue if I had forgotten to pay some $20 invoice for glorified Qtips and a cute little bottle of Nutrigena.....
I received a call days before my scheduled procedure at St Francis Imaging demanding payment over the phone after I'd already satisfied my deductible... explaining that to the 3rd party collector wasn't an option.... she obviously didn't care. She just makes calls to get money from people before their procedures, and as far as I could tell, she had no connection to the healthcare system other than making cold calls to people like me demanding I pay money... and I ended up getting a refund check for the entire amount I paid.... MONTHS LATER.
And I guess I shouldn't forget the doc who didn't give me any sort of "choice" -- he referred me to a "boutique" hospital HE FRIGGIN OWNED THAT WAS OUT OF NETWORK, costing me alot of money that I never would have had to pay had I been given the proper choice of hospitals and options that I and my employer ALREADY FRIGGIN PAID FOR through BC/BS....
I'm not the only one to go through this, there are lots of horror stories out there.
I'm grateful yours wasn't one of them....
When I bought a new car, I didn't have to pay everybody who had a hand in building the car... and when my used car dropped a transmission, my mechanic didn't ask for $500 upfront days before he installed it.... and last time I checked, they were still in business making a profit.
Once again, NOBODY is/was talking about "free" health care.
Except maybe Conan, Gweed, and the
"I want my free healthcare!" strawman you like to trot out and the moocher
"Gimme gimme gimme" welfare strawman Gweed has perpetually on display.....
Quote from: USRufnex on January 13, 2010, 08:43:37 PM
Is your middle name, "Condescending?"
It's not about "free" health care.
It's about the haphazard way in which some doctors, clinics, and hospitals want their money upfront... I had a blizzard of bills to pay for my cancer surgery.... I wrote check after check after check... it didn't make any sense which ones wanted everything paid upfront and which ones wanted me to wait for a bill... and which ones would send a nasty letter out of the blue if I had forgotten to pay some $20 invoice for glorified Qtips and a cute little bottle of Nutrigena.....
I received a call days before my scheduled procedure at St Francis Imaging demanding payment over the phone after I'd already satisfied my deductible... explaining that to the 3rd party collector wasn't an option.... she obviously didn't care. She just makes calls to get money from people before their procedures, and as far as I could tell, she had no connection to the healthcare system other than making cold calls to people like me demanding I pay money... and I ended up getting a refund check for the entire amount I paid.... MONTHS LATER.
And I guess I shouldn't forget the doc who didn't give me any sort of "choice" -- he referred me to a "boutique" hospital HE FRIGGIN OWNED THAT WAS OUT OF NETWORK, costing me alot of money that I never would have had to pay had I been given the proper choice of hospitals and options that I and my employer ALREADY FRIGGIN PAID FOR through BC/BS....
I'm not the only one to go through this, there are lots of horror stories out there.
I'm grateful yours wasn't one of them....
When I bought a new car, I didn't have to pay everybody who had a hand in building the car... and when my used car dropped a transmission, my mechanic didn't ask for $500 upfront days before he installed it.... and last time I checked, they were still in business making a profit.
Once again, NOBODY is/was talking about "free" health care.
Except maybe Conan, Gweed, and the "I want my free healthcare!" strawman you like to trot out and the moocher "Gimme gimme gimme" welfare strawman Gweed has perpetually on display.....
BTW- Your experience did, in fact save me the mistake of having mine done at OSH (I'm typing one-handed sort of, forgive typos my left arm is still paralyzed from a nerve block- it's creepy). As soon as the surgical coordinator tried to schedule me at OSH I asked if it was in network, it was not. Threrefore the reason this all came together very quickly. My surgeon only does surgeries at the Natalie twice a month and I need to get recovering quickly.
As far as the $500 issue, something still isn't right about the way that was handled.
My experience today with the health care world wasn't for me, but my mother.
As a recovering cancer victim (uterine cancer about 15 years ago), her PCP suggested she get a sigmoid colonoscopy. For some background, my mother is nearly 64, and has a previous diagnosis of a subdural hematoma from a fall in 1984. She has some left-side paralysis but gets around pretty good on level ground.
Back to the discussion at hand. My mother, since she is disabled, is in the SoonerCare network. It has been a God send as far as keeping her costs manageable, and every year sofar we've had to pull teeth at the state level to make sure her care wasn't canceled due to neglect of her case worker. But two dollar prescriptions is definitely good for her.
So the colonscopy was scheduled initially for October 9th. I stayed with her during the grueling prep (I'm 42 and my physician tells me to expect this when I turn 50, ugh) which lasted nearly 48 hours. I take her to Hillcrest for the procedure and the nurse tells us her prep wasn't good enough, so they had to abort the procedure.
They changed the method of her preparation for procedure two, she went in on Oct 22nd (her sister took her this time, whom I now know reads the forums..hi) and all went well this time.
Fast-forward to today. My mother has been divorced from my dad (who lives with his sister in Claremore now) for about four years. Mom was on (while they were married) his insurance through his former job (he retired and got to retain insurance through Sunoco) until they divorced. Suddenly, my dad tells mom that he has received a collections bill for the procedure for a little over $300. After calling Soonercare and the doctors office, we decided through some deduction by the doctor's office, since both visits had claims filed and paid for by Soonercare, that the offending bill was likely the Hillcrest facility. Wound up not being the facility, but a radiology bill that the radiologist didn't file 'because I didn't think Soonercare would pay for it'. So, instead of calling my mother or even sending a letter, they just turned the bill over to a collection agency.
This is a lot of what is wrong with the HCS right now. A litany of paperwork that offices hate to move on because it's such a pain. Was the radiologist in the wrong. You bet your a$$. But with seemingly 10s of different forms for each of the different insurance companies to file, I think it's high time that the industry and whomever else needs to be looking into it figure out some kind of clearing house system to standardize claims paperwork.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 13, 2010, 11:21:35 PM
(I'm typing one-handed sort of, forgive typos my left arm is still paralyzed from a nerve block- it's creepy).
pu$$y. Seriously, glad your up and around.
Guess it's still too early to see if you have MURSA symptoms. Did give you all those antibiotics before they cut you?
Pinched nerve? Numb? Sounds like your nuts.
Good luck. Hope to hell that jerk doctor (one of too many over there) who put personal greed ahead of his Hippocratic oath didn't do the surgery. Amazing how many qualified doctors they've let go or alienated for a much less quality care in favor of their "not for profit" bottom line.
Having hell sleeping?
This is all too accurate.
Rep. Anthony Weiner on the status of the pile:
Hopefully this will dampen usruf's "free handout" spirit, at least for a little while.
Gwee,
Get ready because you sure aren't going to like where this is headed....we'll give you a year to catch on.
FOTD aka AOX
Pray tell where this is headed? Oh, and could you post another stupid/irrelevant cartoon?
Quote from: guido911 on January 20, 2010, 03:46:23 PM
Pray tell where this is headed? Oh, and could you post another stupid/irrelevant cartoon?
It's headed into a new realm....wait and see....
Quote from: FOTD on January 20, 2010, 03:53:12 PM
It's headed into a new realm....wait and see....
What in the f$ck are you talking about. Just say it without being so freakin cryptic. jeez.
Quote from: guido911 on January 20, 2010, 04:28:26 PM
What in the f$ck are you talking about. Just say it without being so freakin cryptic. jeez.
Maybe Shadows could translate it.
Quote from: guido911 on January 20, 2010, 04:28:26 PM
What in the f$ck are you talking about. Just say it without being so freakin cryptic. jeez.
It would be amusing if Snowe ends up being known as the one who saved health care reform. Maybe she'll become the Lieberman of the Republicans, albeit without the whiny voice and perhaps with a few principles. This probably will not happen but anything is possible when in Massachusetts independents split off 3 to 1 yesterday (recall, the state popped for BO by 26% margin) and recently voted 65 to 35 to legalize marijuana. The current health care bill is not favored by the intellectual state while it is their number one priority in polling.
"President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, "people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right." http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/relieved.php
Time will tell, but you can bet that there will be reform in health care and the dems are far from over...look at your alternative....another toon for you!
All your ambiguity and obfuscation just to avoid saying "there will be reform in health care". Someone needs his bong water changed. ;)
Apparently, a Canadian province premier HEARTS the U.S. status quo healthcare.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html
How's that single payer system working out for him? bwahahahahahahaha
Quote from: guido911 on January 20, 2010, 05:18:41 PM
All your ambiguity and obfuscation just to avoid saying "there will be reform in health care". Someone needs his bong water changed. ;)
I think he runs it through his brita then drinks it.......
This proves little except that the man made a choice to spend his own money on a personal decision.
Wise up. Single payer is the only real solution for the majority.
Quote from: guido911 on February 02, 2010, 09:25:02 AM
Apparently, a Canadian province premier HEARTS the U.S. status quo healthcare.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/01/nl-williams-heart-201.html
How's that single payer system working out for him? bwahahahahahahaha
I wonder how many people do the reverse?
It's long been true that people who have means will come here from around the world to get treatment. That part of our system works pretty darned well. It's the financial part that is broken irrevocably. It's dragging the hospitals towards bankruptcy.
Quote from: nathanm on February 02, 2010, 03:55:36 PM
I wonder how many people do the reverse?
It's long been true that people who have means will come here from around the world to get treatment. That part of our system works pretty darned well. It's the financial part that is broken irrevocably. It's dragging the hospitals towards bankruptcy.
Anecdotally, doctors and hospitals are claiming it's Medicare and Medicaid pre-determined procedure prices which don't take into account real-world economics that's breaking them. Just repeating what I'm hearing.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2010, 04:08:31 PM
Anecdotally, doctors and hospitals are claiming it's Medicare and Medicaid pre-determined procedure prices which don't take into account real-world economics that's breaking them. Just repeating what I'm hearing.
They're getting seriously squeezed by private insurers also now. That's why the rack rate is so far in excess of actual cost these days. They're both paying too little. It's worse with the private insurers, however, because they have to spend a lot of money keeping up with so many different insurers that they have to employ quite a few people to make sure they get paid. So not only are they getting paid peanuts, but it's costing them a lot to get those peanuts.
Combine that with the increased delinquency on whatever remains of the hospital bill (or the entire thing, if the person was uninsured), and they're having a hard time keeping afloat.
I'm not at all sure what the best solution to our health care problem is, but I know for damn sure that there is a problem, despite what some people are trying to claim.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 02, 2010, 04:08:31 PM
Anecdotally, doctors and hospitals are claiming it's Medicare and Medicaid pre-determined procedure prices which don't take into account real-world economics that's breaking them. Just repeating what I'm hearing.
It's lawyers....sorry. But if they sue and lose, they should pay all the costs associated with the suit....
Quote from: FOTD on February 02, 2010, 06:01:17 PM
It's lawyers....sorry. But if they sue and lose, they should pay all the costs associated with the suit....
Where's Rwarn with his meme that that's less than 1% of total healthcare costs these days?
FOTD,
You must know after 5,000 plus posts that Guido struggles with English. He is locked into Okie and just can't quite catch every word. In particular, notice how there is never a direct answer to a question and seldom a reply about the actual topic of discussion.
It's the Republi-contin in the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch bottled Kook-Aid.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2010, 06:45:25 PM
It's the Republi-contin in the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch bottled Kook-Aid.
Must...
Resist...
Sorry....
Can't....
This is screaming out
Any competent English grammar teacher would have a field day almost anywhere on this forum.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 03, 2010, 01:21:10 PM
Where's Rwarn with his meme that that's less than 1% of total healthcare costs these days?
Malpractice costs account for less than 2% of total medical costs. Those aren't my numbers, but the CBO's.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 03, 2010, 10:03:47 PM
Malpractice costs account for less than 2% of total medical costs. Those aren't my numbers, but the CBO's.
So what? 2% is better than 0%. Let's make reforms with the eye on reducing all costs, not just those sexy to dems.
Quote from: guido911 on February 03, 2010, 10:24:31 PM
So what? 2% is better than 0%. Let's make reforms with the eye on reducing all costs, not just those sexy to dems.
How about we focus on the biggest costs first, where the greatest savings might be realized?
Quote from: guido911 on February 03, 2010, 10:24:31 PM
So what? 2% is better than 0%. Let's make reforms with the eye on reducing all costs, not just those sexy to dems.
I think most people would rather focus on a big target than an itty-bitty one, thanks.
Even if in the extremely unlikely event that you actually manage to halve the cost of malpractice, it's a savings of less than 1%.
Considering that medical costs consistently outpace the rate of inflation, that's a big whoop-dee-doo. And, as the CBO showed, the "cut malpractice costs and everything will be hunky-dory" canard obviously is false.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 04, 2010, 06:36:01 AM
I think most people would rather focus on a big target than an itty-bitty one, thanks.
Even if in the extremely unlikely event that you actually manage to halve the cost of malpractice, it's a savings of less than 1%.
Similar to Obama's spending freeze.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 04, 2010, 06:36:01 AM
I think most people would rather focus on a big target than an itty-bitty one, thanks.
Even if in the extremely unlikely event that you actually manage to halve the cost of malpractice, it's a savings of less than 1%.
Considering that medical costs consistently outpace the rate of inflation, that's a big whoop-dee-doo. And, as the CBO showed, the "cut malpractice costs and everything will be hunky-dory" canard obviously is false.
For as shrewd as you sound with your personal finances, I'm always amazed by your comments of "That's only 1%" or "That's only $1 bln".
It only takes 10 or 20 of these "it's only 1%" to make a big difference. You have to start somewhere. I'm truly amazed at how de-sensitized people are to the value of $1 bln these days, especially our legislators.
I'm keeping a careful eye on my statements from my insurance company and medical providers from my shoulder surgery and I'm seeing a few areas that are raising red flags with me.
One is a statement from my insurance company came last night, the claim date was two days prior to my surgery, it was a "lab" claim and the physician's name clearly stood out at me. It's my daughter's boyfriend's father, a cardiologist. I'd know for certain if I saw him that day and I most definitely did not. All I can figure is that must have been how they keyed through the charge for the EKG they did on my pre-op visit at St. Francis. I understand the purpose of a pre-surgical eval by a cardiologist and a PA from the anesthesiologist's office.
There's a few other procedures I'm questioning as to how necessary they were. They took an X-ray of my shoulder on my two week follow up visit. My surgery was for soft tissue issues which would not readily show up on an X-ray. There's another $100 I can't see was needed unless my surgeon was looking for a missing hex socket, ratchet, or screwdriver. :o
Another was a pre-op visit with my surgeon the same day I had the pre-op at the hospital. I gained nothing from it and I can't see how my surgeon gained anything from it other than an additional $120 office call charge. I literally spent less than 2-3 minutes with him and had some great coffee, but that's it.
I think there are simply some extraneous charges that get thrown in which do not need to. Every time I hear "Oh, we don't need to do this" or "We are going to cut your re-hab visits from three to two a week" I'm perfectly content with that. Insurance companies could probably do a better job of reviewing what sort of extraneous visits they are allowing if they are concerned about capping costs.
If the government went to a single-payer system and did not take time to do careful audits of all the sausage stuffing that goes on around hospitalizations and surgeries, all we'd be doing is passing the problem along to the tax payer without really looking at why the costs are so high.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 04, 2010, 09:44:42 AM
For as shrewd as you sound with your personal finances, I'm always amazed by your comments of "That's only 1%" or "That's only $1 bln".
You're making the very rash assumption that tort or malpractice reform or whatever they're calling it these days is actually going to halve that 2% to 1% (remember it's
less than 2% of total medical costs), when there's no evidence it will at all. There's no evidence it will even cut such costs 10%, which would be a savings of 0.1 or 0.2% amid the cost of medical care.
And when you factor in medical costs rising 2-3 times the rate of inflation each year, which would completely eat up those savings, it's not going to do much, if at all.
It's a hell of a lot of effort with little return. That, I think, is economics that you can understand.
You (and FOTD) are paying attention to a tiny little turd amid a gigantic sewage pond. There are much bigger targets that one should be targeting.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 04, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
You're making the very rash assumption that tort or malpractice reform or whatever they're calling it these days is actually going to halve that 2% to 1% (remember it's less than 2% of total medical costs), when there's no evidence it will at all. There's no evidence it will even cut such costs 10%, which would be a savings of 0.1 or 0.2% amid the cost of medical care.
And when you factor in medical costs rising 2-3 times the rate of inflation each year, which would completely eat up those savings, it's not going to do much, if at all.
It's a hell of a lot of effort with little return. That, I think, is economics that you can understand.
You (and FOTD) are paying attention to a tiny little turd amid a gigantic sewage pond. There are much bigger targets that one should be targeting.
And it's almost a moot point. Obama told the GOP at their Baltimore get together that he's open to considering tort reform as part of the overall package. Of course, he did make the excellent point that there's got to be some back and forth and honest negotiation for that to happen.
Of course with the current crop of GOP stalwarts, the answer is obvious: no.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on February 04, 2010, 10:16:56 AM
There are much bigger targets that one should be targeting.
Such as?
Quote from: we vs us on February 04, 2010, 10:30:11 AM
And it's almost a moot point. Obama told the GOP at their Baltimore get together that he's open to considering tort reform as part of the overall package. Of course, he did make the excellent point that there's got to be some back and forth and honest negotiation for that to happen.
Of course with the current crop of GOP stalwarts, the answer is obvious: no.
What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship? I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS. They can't get it heard in committee.
Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 04, 2010, 10:56:27 AM
What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship? I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS. They can't get it heard in committee.
Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.
They're politicians, Co...do you believe everything you hear from EITHER side? I bet they don't have anything and HAVE been able to get a word in while in committee. Remember, this is the party whose members have stated that healthcare would be Obama's 'Waterloo'...and it would 'break' him.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 04, 2010, 10:56:27 AM
What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship? I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS. They can't get it heard in committee.
Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.
Well, they slowly watered down and then struck the public option altogether. The Stupak Amendment (limiting abortion coverage on a government plan) was another honey pot for the GOP. Of course, exercising that legendary party discipline, none of them bit.
I'm sure there were more, but those are the biggies.
Quote from: nathanm on February 04, 2010, 01:26:22 AM
How about we focus on the biggest costs first, where the greatest savings might be realized?
I never said let's "focus" on tort reform, but how about just including it. Seriously, how much time does it take to type the appropriate language into a bill? If it saves money, no matter how much, why not just do it instead of looking at a bigger picture which has gotten us no where at present.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 04, 2010, 10:56:27 AM
What are some examples of how the Democrats have extended an olive branch or exhibited a true effort at bi-partisanship? I keep hearing that the Republicans have offered nothing in the way of a reform plan which is total BS. They can't get it heard in committee.
Gridlock is what happens when both sides are unwavering, not one.
There was indeed a health-care bill by the GOP. However, the CBO report (which, remember, the CBO is nonpartisan) on it revealed it was so inadequate in extending health-care options to the uninsured that it couldn't be taken seriously.
In short, it couldn't get out of committee because the experts who examined it said it sucked.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 04, 2010, 09:51:46 AM
I'm keeping a careful eye on my statements from my insurance company and medical providers from my shoulder surgery and I'm seeing a few areas that are raising red flags with me.
One is a statement from my insurance company came last night, the claim date was two days prior to my surgery, it was a "lab" claim and the physician's name clearly stood out at me. It's my daughter's boyfriend's father, a cardiologist. I'd know for certain if I saw him that day and I most definitely did not. All I can figure is that must have been how they keyed through the charge for the EKG they did on my pre-op visit at St. Francis. I understand the purpose of a pre-surgical eval by a cardiologist and a PA from the anesthesiologist's office.
There's a few other procedures I'm questioning as to how necessary they were. They took an X-ray of my shoulder on my two week follow up visit. My surgery was for soft tissue issues which would not readily show up on an X-ray. There's another $100 I can't see was needed unless my surgeon was looking for a missing hex socket, ratchet, or screwdriver. :o
Another was a pre-op visit with my surgeon the same day I had the pre-op at the hospital. I gained nothing from it and I can't see how my surgeon gained anything from it other than an additional $120 office call charge. I literally spent less than 2-3 minutes with him and had some great coffee, but that's it.
I think there are simply some extraneous charges that get thrown in which do not need to. Every time I hear "Oh, we don't need to do this" or "We are going to cut your re-hab visits from three to two a week" I'm perfectly content with that. Insurance companies could probably do a better job of reviewing what sort of extraneous visits they are allowing if they are concerned about capping costs.
If the government went to a single-payer system and did not take time to do careful audits of all the sausage stuffing that goes on around hospitalizations and surgeries, all we'd be doing is passing the problem along to the tax payer without really looking at why the costs are so high.
FOTD's with you until that last paragraph. Why do you people always have it in your mind that government will handle the single payer invoices and manage care? This needs to be the insurance companies duty to enforce on behalf of the taxpayers and the government. Instead of running away from an efficient direction, just say no. Lazy attitude.
BTW, things you see that look unnecessary on doctor bills are cya to protect them from the lawyers.
Quote from: guido911 on February 04, 2010, 01:10:43 PM
I never said let's "focus" on tort reform, but how about just including it. Seriously, how much time does it take to type the appropriate language into a bill? If it saves money, no matter how much, why not just do it instead of looking at a bigger picture which has gotten us no where at present.
There have been a number of states that have gone down that road. Can you provide any evidence that tort reform has reduced healthcare costs or even slowed their growth?
Would you support comprehensive medical tort reform that barred suits for any conduct that wasn't wilful or malicious, and instead created a fund to provide for the continuing care required as a result of (accidental) malpractice? Or would that be too "big government" for you?
That's one of the great advantages of single payer, you know. Health care costs are paid out of the pool regardless of their cause, so only cases where punitive damages are appropriate would have to go to trial. But, as mentioned above, it could be done without single payer, but it would require some sort of fee to fund the pot of money used to pay for malpractice.
Such a system would be more fair to everyone, in that the payout would not be an estimation of future costs caused by the malpractice, but actual costs instead. It would also avoid the expense of lawsuits in all but the most egregious of cases.
Quote from: we vs us on February 04, 2010, 11:34:13 AM
Well, they slowly watered down and then struck the public option altogether. The Stupak Amendment (limiting abortion coverage on a government plan) was another honey pot for the GOP. Of course, exercising that legendary party discipline, none of them bit.
I'm sure there were more, but those are the biggies.
How much of that was true bipartisanship and how much was: accountability to voters come November and what essentially amounts to corruption on the part of Democrats who are on the insurance company and big pharma dole?
That's the beauty of a two party system for incumbents. They can blame lack of progress on the opposing party instead of corruption or fear of losing their job for doing the right thing.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 04, 2010, 03:19:13 PM
They can blame lack of progress on the opposing party instead of corruption or fear of losing their job for doing the right thing.
In this particular case, however, the Republican leadership is happy to take the blame. They have repeatedly stated that their current goal is to obstruct the Democrats' agenda. I don't have references at the moment, but I seem to remember several bills so far that have been changed at the request of Republican Congresspeople, yet still garnered exactly zero Republican yea votes.
One thing is certain, however: both parties are on the corporate dole. The only room for debate there is one of degree, not of substance.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 04, 2010, 03:19:13 PM
How much of that was true bipartisanship and how much was: accountability to voters come November and what essentially amounts to corruption on the part of politiciansDemocrats who are on the insurance company and big pharma dole?
That's the beauty of a two party system for incumbents. I They can blame lack of progress on the opposing party instead of corruption or fear of losing their job for doing the right thing.
There is room for discipline and negotiation to achieve a result that is in the best interest of the citizenry....if they were to define common ground. Are you saying it's best to do nothing? As a single payer advocate, the only argument from the blue dawgs and repukes is "it's socialism." So what?
Cannot believe you ignored what Nathanm wrote. You must have been having a Guido moment...
Conan - no coherent reply...yet?
It's STILL the Republi-contin in the Cheney/Rove/Murdoch bottled Kook-Aid!
Quote from: nathanm on February 04, 2010, 03:04:09 PM
There have been a number of states that have gone down that road. Can you provide any evidence that tort reform has reduced healthcare costs or even slowed their growth?
Would you support comprehensive medical tort reform that barred suits for any conduct that wasn't wilful or malicious, and instead created a fund to provide for the continuing care required as a result of (accidental) malpractice? Or would that be too "big government" for you?
That's one of the great advantages of single payer, you know. Health care costs are paid out of the pool regardless of their cause, so only cases where punitive damages are appropriate would have to go to trial. But, as mentioned above, it could be done without single payer, but it would require some sort of fee to fund the pot of money used to pay for malpractice.
Such a system would be more fair to everyone, in that the payout would not be an estimation of future costs caused by the malpractice, but actual costs instead. It would also avoid the expense of lawsuits in all but the most egregious of cases.
I am going to cheat a little (or be lazy) and just re-post this thread about tort reform in which cannon fodder & I got into it a little bit (plaintiff lawyer v. defense lawyer):
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14143.msg141920#msg141920
This is what I specifically posted about the success with tort reform in Texas:
Here's an article that claims defensive medicine costs are nearly $100B a year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511987247017719.html
In Texas, significant tort reform was implemented with the following results:
• The total impact of tort reforms implemented since 1995 includes gains of $112.5 billion in spending each year as
well as almost 499,000 jobs in the state.
• The reforms with respect to asbestos/silica litigation, which were enacted in 2005, are already contributing $490.3 million in annual spending and 2,683 permanent jobs.
• Reforms related to limiting non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation alone lead to increases of $55.3 billion in spending per year and more than 223,000 jobs.
• Benefits are spread across the state, positively affecting communities both large and small. Results are provided
for the state as well as every county, metropolitan statistical area, council of governments region, planning region, and
legislative district.
• The fiscal stimulus to the State from civil justice reforms is about $2.558 billion per year.
• Other positive benefits include an increase in the number of doctors, particularly in rural areas and other regions, which have been facing severe shortages and the inclusion of almost 430,000 Texans in health plans who would
otherwise be uninsured.
http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf
Geez...you are using Texas as an example???
Just for general principle, the state that executes the most innocent people per capita of any state, should be excluded for consideration of legal topics.
Quote from: guido911 on February 04, 2010, 07:41:53 PM
I am going to cheat a little (or be lazy) and just re-post this thread about tort reform in which cannon fodder & I got into it a little bit (plaintiff lawyer v. defense lawyer):
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14143.msg141920#msg141920
This is what I specifically posted about the success with tort reform in Texas:
Here's an article that claims defensive medicine costs are nearly $100B a year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124511987247017719.html
In Texas, significant tort reform was implemented with the following results:
• The total impact of tort reforms implemented since 1995 includes gains of $112.5 billion in spending each year as
well as almost 499,000 jobs in the state.
• The reforms with respect to asbestos/silica litigation, which were enacted in 2005, are already contributing $490.3 million in annual spending and 2,683 permanent jobs.
• Reforms related to limiting non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation alone lead to increases of $55.3 billion in spending per year and more than 223,000 jobs.
• Benefits are spread across the state, positively affecting communities both large and small. Results are provided
for the state as well as every county, metropolitan statistical area, council of governments region, planning region, and
legislative district.
• The fiscal stimulus to the State from civil justice reforms is about $2.558 billion per year.
• Other positive benefits include an increase in the number of doctors, particularly in rural areas and other regions, which have been facing severe shortages and the inclusion of almost 430,000 Texans in health plans who would
otherwise be uninsured.
http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/Texas_Tort_Reform_Report_2008.pdf
Perhaps I'm having a senior moment, but I don't see where it discusses reduced growth (or an actual decline) in medical costs. Given that Texas still has some of the highest cost health care in the country (based on Medicare per-capita expenditures), I'm inclined to think it doesn't exist.
Quote from: nathanm on February 04, 2010, 08:17:32 PM
Perhaps I'm having a senior moment,
That explains some of your posts but honestly, I haven't gotten the impression you are old enough to have senior moments.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 04, 2010, 08:27:12 PM
That explains some of your posts but honestly, I haven't gotten the impression you are old enough to have senior moments.
Everyone has them from time to time, no matter what age. ;)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 04, 2010, 07:52:16 PM
Geez...you are using Texas as an example???
Just for general principle, the state that executes the most innocent people per capita of any state, should be excluded for consideration of legal topics.
That post is exactly the reason why I do not take you seriously.
(http://imgur.com/TBggY.jpg)
Yeah, I know. Reality hurts, don't it?
And torture is good.
Burner, that joke is played already....you are so
retarded slow.
Quote from: FOTD on February 05, 2010, 03:01:49 PM
Burner, that joke is played already....you are so retarded slow.
I think this POTUS Obama guy has a far better chance for a career in politics than stand-up comedy.
Ok, this thread started out with Limbaugh in the topic. Here is a specific, question about him. And a follow up question about general principles.
Given the Limbaugh history of discussions about drug law infractions, and the fact that he doctor shopped and bought in the neighborhood of 2,000 pills from 4 different doctors, cut a deal with Florida that if he went to drug treatment his record would be clean after 18 months and then was caught with another man's prescription before the 18 months time was up and still got off. (I smell a Florida trend here - or maybe it is just the dead manatees?) And any other jurisdiction in the country would have considered 2,000 pills as "intent to distribute").
First, what do you think would be the appropriate punishment for any other person (without the connections, money, and political pull?)
Second, since this type of comment/discussion is considered schtick, are we to assume that the whole idea of illegal drug distribution is one that you won't take seriously? (Or just Limbaugh's illegal drug activity??)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 07, 2010, 07:50:33 PM
Ok, this thread started out with Limbaugh in the topic. Here is a specific, question about him. And a follow up question about general principles.
Given the Limbaugh history of discussions about drug law infractions, and the fact that he doctor shopped and bought in the neighborhood of 2,000 pills from 4 different doctors, cut a deal with Florida that if he went to drug treatment his record would be clean after 18 months and then was caught with another man's prescription before the 18 months time was up and still got off. (I smell a Florida trend here - or maybe it is just the dead manatees?) And any other jurisdiction in the country would have considered 2,000 pills as "intent to distribute").
First, what do you think would be the appropriate punishment for any other person (without the connections, money, and political pull?)
Second, since this type of comment/discussion is considered schtick, are we to assume that the whole idea of illegal drug distribution is one that you won't take seriously? (Or just Limbaugh's illegal drug activity??)
Problem seems to be no one here likes asparagus.
Or direct answers.
Direct answers don't fit well with glittering generalities, sound bites, and canned playbooks. They require an individual's thought.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 08, 2010, 12:12:10 PM
Or direct answers.
Direct answers don't fit well with glittering generalities, sound bites, and canned playbooks. They require an individual's thought.
(http://www.nipplecripple.com/shop/images/uploads/pot_calling_the_kettle_black_01.jpg)
Well at least it is a direct answer .... at long last.
Petroglyphs are so last millenium. Now, if we can just get to words.
Aren't you bilingual?
Petroglyphs? I thought they became extinct during the last ice age.
Don't know for sure... you used them...what does that say about cave man tech?
While completely skirting the Limbaugh question.
I will tell you my answer, so you can have something else to disimulate about.
Oxycontin is a true abomination in the Biblical sense of the word. It has become an extremely dangerous recreational drug. (400+ people per year die, as compared to near 4,000 using heroin as a reference.) People who sell the stuff outside of the legal channels are vile and deserve serious prison time, if not life without parole. If someone OD's on the stuff they sell, it should become a capital offense for the seller.
And marijuana should be legalized.
Those can be platform planks when I run for office.
And I am a Lifetime Member of the NRA, and unlike George H.W. Bush, I will NEVER resign my membership!!
Another platform plank.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 08, 2010, 07:16:48 PM
Don't know for sure... you used them...what does that say about cave man tech?
While completely skirting the Limbaugh question.
I will tell you my answer, so you can have something else to disimulate about.
Oxycontin is a true abomination in the Biblical sense of the word. It has become an extremely dangerous recreational drug. (400+ people per year die, as compared to near 4,000 using heroin as a reference.) People who sell the stuff outside of the legal channels are vile and deserve serious prison time, if not life without parole. If someone OD's on the stuff they sell, it should become a capital offense for the seller.
And marijuana should be legalized.
Those can be platform planks when I run for office.
And I am a Lifetime Member of the NRA, and unlike George H.W. Bush, I will NEVER resign my membership!!
Another platform plank.
You want an answer about Limpbaugh's drug abuse?
I could care less. There's your answer. I don't pay attention to Rush and occasionally hear him when I tune to KRMG in my truck near the hour or half hour to get the news.
I'll indulge you a little: I don't think he was treated any different than any other drug abusers with his prior record (or lack thereof) and I don't believe he was treated any different than any other celebs are in similar circumstances. You only seem to care because his political ideologies are obviously different than yours. The so-called "bust" for carrying Viagra in someone else's name? Not uncommon for celebs who are concerned about having their personal life broadcast as tabloid fodder.
I take your ranting about Limpbaugh's drug abuse as filler in absence of any substantive discussion on health care reform.
The healthcare bill that is being looked at now is catastrophic and non-workable. It is the classic example of sellout to corporate America (insurance companies and drug companies) while doing nothing for the people - the actual citizens of this country. By both sides. There are just as many Democrats on Charlie Rangle's committee holding out for their corporate contributors as Republican - actually more. Pathetic, ain't it?
And yet, the system we have is seriously broken. If you have insurance, then you and I are paying close to 40% of our costs for other people. If you don't have insurance, then I and my insurance company are stuck paying for you, too. That's for every doctor visit, hospital stay, band-aid, aspirin, Nexium or Oxycontin.
Some of the things that should be addressed are pushed around in public from time to time - need them all;
Full participation/coverage.
No exclusion for pre-existing conditions (that means no cherry picking by the insurance companies)
Get a grip on the insurance companies excesses. Free enterprise is not synonymous with Robber Baron.
Cost control?? How? Most of the rest of the world does it, though, so why can't we? Study Belgium, Denmark, Japan, and Switzerland to start. Ok, France, too, since you insist!
Single payer, no.
Government option - perhaps.
And here is a little idealistic license coming through; how about if the RWRE quit lying about how bad health care/insurance is in other countries with universal coverage? Even the British Conservative felt moved to censure (last year) the guy who was the main mouth piece for US RWRE, about telling the lies about how bad it is in UK. (Yes, I have several close family friends who live in UK and Scotland and experience it every day - no problems. Same with Canada. They are just as fat and unhealthy as we are, but they have insurance.)
One last thing - two other idealistic little tidbits; it should be law that a). Congress must have the same insurance coverage as the least among us. (And they cannot have a better pension plan than the least among us.)
And b). No CEO in any company can have a better insurance plan selection than the lowest paid employee of said company. (Lest there be any misunderstanding, no, not all companies must have the same plan selections, it just must be the same selections for everyone in the given company.)
Sad you don't care about Limbaugh's crimes. Watergate bother you? How about Chappaquiddick? Or George II lies? Or Billy-Bob Clinton's?
I can agree on a few of your points. One I don't particularly agree with is insurance coverage being the same all the way up and down the totem pole in a corporation. To me, that's the same as putting limits on executive pay (I do draw the line at executives profiting via bonuses when their balance sheets are shored up with low-interest government loans). Generally executives are awarded better benefits and pay because ostensibly their accumulated business experience and education makes them worth more to the operation.
One of the biggest problems forcing higher health care costs has nothing to do with insurance companies other than they are stupid enough to not watch the till a lot closer. It's the decentralization of health care into doctor-owned facilities: i.e. specialty hospitals. That's the one thing I'm NOT hearing in the debate. A lot of docs have also ventured off as partners into diagnostic facilities (i.e. MRI & labs), rehabilitation, long term nursing care, and hospice.
I will probably draw fire for this, but think about how much money it takes to operate specialty bone and joint hospitals, spine hospitals, surgical hospitals, cancer hospitals, etc. Problem is, no one nipped that problem in the bud before it exploded. You can't shove the genie back in the bottle now.
Limpbaugh didn't kill anyone, nor did anyone die as a result of his actions or inaction, so far that I'm aware. He went to the same lengths many other exonerated junkies have gone to to get his dope.
Now Watergate does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you? Tell the truth.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 08, 2010, 09:15:51 PM
One of the biggest problems forcing higher health care costs has nothing to do with insurance companies other than they are stupid enough to not watch the till a lot closer. It's the decentralization of health care into doctor-owned facilities: i.e. specialty hospitals. That's the one thing I'm NOT hearing in the debate. A lot of docs have also ventured off as partners into diagnostic facilities (i.e. MRI & labs), rehabilitation, long term nursing care, and hospice.
I will probably draw fire for this, but think about how much money it takes to operate specialty bone and joint hospitals, spine hospitals, surgical hospitals, cancer hospitals, etc. Problem is, no one nipped that problem in the bud before it exploded. You can't shove the genie back in the bottle now.
I fully agree with you there. I posted link to an article last year that pointed out the strong correlation between areas with large numbers of these "businessdoctor" facilities and far higher than average Medicare costs. It specifically talked about McAllen, TX.
Personally, rather than the bill currently not under consideration, I'd much rather have single payer (or even the public option) plus lightly regulated private insurance (by lightly regulated, I mean regulations regarding financial solvency, not products, except as is necessary to effect the first goal). Everybody gets a baseline, and companies that want to can offer supplemental health insurance to any or all of their employees.
As the health insurance "system" currently stands, the regulations regarding sameness of benefits make sense, given their tax-free nature. We pretend it's not part of total compensation unless certain people get better plans than everyone else. (IIRC, you can have different plans for different classes of employee, just not individually)
b.) is the sound bite version. Does not mean the same up and down the organizaiton. Example, my company has a range of selections from none to full, with minimal co-pay. I think there are about 6 or 7 different main choices. Now, the longer version is that no CEO (or any other upper management) can have a different set of selections from everyone else in the company. They get the same choices as I get, or you get.
The first one, a.) is the big one to me, and the least likely to ever work. No member of Congress can have an insurance plan better than the worst plan readily available to any citizen of this country. (A little equality under the law.)
I was reading about those stand alone facilities last week somewhere (senior moment, can't remember where - Wall Street Journal??). Apparently, the concensus is that overall, they are fairly effective at treatment and are noticeably more cost effective (cheaper) than the hospital equivalent. Something to do with focus on one topic and not having the whole spectrum a hospital has to support. But that pretty much by definition is "cherry picking". Lot of tough calls out there for us.
More about executive pay later. I think it should maybe go under a different topic. There is a guy out here in Tulsa I know who believes a lot like me on that, so I will blatantly copy him. (It's already written - will have to find it in old notes.)
The last part mentioned several highly public figures. Interesting how you only mentioned Limbaugh. Clinton's BJ in the Oval Office didn't kill anyone and no one died as a result, yet there was an impeachment. Also, Bush's lies did lead to many deaths, and no consequences for the people involved.
I have intensely disliked Kennedy ever since the Gun Control Act of 1968. One small redeeming factor about him was that he actually went on national TV to apologize specifically to the people of Massachusetts and generally to the U.S.
Another very public figure in recent years was Laura Bush. Not only did she kill her alledged 'high school sweetheart' while quite likely driving drunk to a party, but her family at the time went to great lengths to hush the story. And no where in the intervening decades has it ever been addressed publicly, let alone a public apology. (I am certain that she is very remorseful and has apologized to the boy's family. I like Laura much better than her husband, but it seems somewhat specious to maintain that double standard - weeks and years about Kennedy, but no even minutes about another very high profile person with very direct contact with highest levels of government. Ok, I do grant there is a diffence in level of public standing...but nowhere near the difference between say, Kennedy and you or me. Or even Mayor Bartlett or Gov. Henry.)