U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:34 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,254 posts, read 5,275,404 times
Reputation: 1982

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
You own a business. Are you a Doctor? Probably not. You wouldn't listen to a Dr on how to run your business, you probably aren't in a position to tell them how to run theirs. He doesn't worry about billing, he requires cash up front, unless you are with an Insurance, that he accepts, which is a very small number.

Just because a Doctor YOU see charges 300$ for an office visit, doesn't mean everyone does. Some, who own their own practice, actually have fair rates. His rates on average is 60$ for a basic office visit/checkup. If you injured yourself, and require xrays, it's a bit more, to cover the cost of the xrays, and such. That's a FAR cry from your $300. Not all Doctors are charging outrageous fees.

You make too many assumptions.

No, but I did do ICD-9 and CPT Coding Medical Billing as well as Medical Transcription for a few years so I actually worked for a Doctor before. I know how the billing works, so I am probably more qualified than you are to discuss this subject.

They, just like I, work under the assumption that you have to have enough money to run the office regardless of getting payments on time. I have $350,000 outstanding right now according to my Quickbooks. Hmmm... I have some customers I now have to send to collections. FUN!

Out here, all Doctors are usually in HMO's. Even the old-timers have joined up. So they don't set their dollar amounts for cash paying customers. They just don't offer discounts for them. SAD but true. This isn't Doc Hollywood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,384 posts, read 4,255,111 times
Reputation: 2273
Default taxe rates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post
This about sums it up.


Nations who prove health care to all citizens live longer and spend less. WHAT is the problem with Americans? They continually defend LARGE corporations (this time Insurance Companies) in their misguided quest to KEEP THEIR FREEDOM.

Ugh stupid people believe that your freedom is somehow tied to your health care requirement.


Canada, The UK and a ton of other countries are much more free than we are. We are too wrapped up in God and Guns for some reason.

Americans are just stupid, and the smart ones are sick of the stupid people focusing on the WRONG THINGS.
Canadian tax rates
2010 (est.)

$0 – $10,382 $10,383 - $40,970 $40,971 - $81,941 $81,942 - $127,021 over $127,021 0% 15% 22% 26% 29%
PLUS either 5.0% to 17.4% depending on the province you live in, which means you could pay up to 46.4% if your income in federal/province taxes, not to include local taxes.

England -

  • calculate tax on your taxable income up to the limit of £37,400 at 20 per cent. Savings income will, in some circumstances, only be taxable at 10%, even if your bank or building society has taxed it at 20% so a repayment may be due, then
  • if you have taxable income over £37,400, calculate tax on the taxable income over £37,400 and up to £150,000 at 40 per cent, then
  • if you have taxable income over £150,000, calculate tax on the taxable income over £150,000 at 50 per cent, then
  • add the last three figures together. This is the amount of tax that is payable for 2010/2011.
But hey if you don't mind taking up to 50% of what you make and giving it up, that's kewl with me..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 02:53 PM
 
Location: THE USA
3,254 posts, read 5,275,404 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
But hey if you don't mind taking up to 50% of what you make and giving it up, that's kewl with me..

Actually I DON'T... that is the point. They already take 33% so if I see a great raise in the quality of life we get, the health care, lower tuition rates = smarter citizens, then NO I don't mind at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2010, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,096 posts, read 99,227,733 times
Reputation: 31574
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
ok...doctors MUST work at minimum wage

nurses MUST work at minimum wage

supplies MUST be cheap from china

equipment must be made by the lowest bidder, quality doesnt matter

abolish all unions , because they keep the costs so high

sounds kinda silly doesnt it......hmmmm???

the average hospital spends 380,000 a MONTH just on electricity...that's over 4.5 million a year just to power the building...then you have the custodial workers, and the food workers, and the laundry, and the water....thats before you even talks about technicians, nurses, doctors, and specialists

as the FED, keeps pushing to have inflation at " the optumom level of 5%" what do you think that will do to the costs OF ALL sub services BEFORE any patient even gets to see a doctor?????

what do you think will happen if the liberals ever pass cap and tax????

are you going to tell the maker of the mri machine he cant charge 1 miilion, that he must eat the costs, so the doctor can give you cheaper service????
A couple of comments:

Some costs, such as utilities, cost of MRI machines and the like are fixed and similar in all industrialized countries. There is no reason to think that these costs are so much higher in the US that our health care costs so much more.

As a registered nurse, I am concerned about the future of the nursing profession . I have not looked into nursing wages in other countries, but I can say that I am concerned that nursing wages here in the US, where they have finally gotten to a level that an RN can actually support herself (95% are women) in a middle class lifestyle, may stagnate, OR (more likely, I think) nurses will be replaced wherever possible with MAs and the like and there will be far fewer jobs for nurses. I have these concerns whether we got to UHC or continue in this system.

Doctors in other countries usually get their education for free, so don't graduate with the mountain of debt that drives a lot of doctor's decisions about specializing, etc.

From what I've seen dealing with insurance companies, they could save a lot on administrative costs simply by not playing "mickey mouse" games with providers about prescription drugs, prior authorizations and such. Many economists feel the same, that there is simply too much administrative overhead in the US system. See this article:

Reforming American health care: Heading for the emergency room | The Economist

My favorite quote:

Even so, he thinks the system is wasteful. In a paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives last year he and Alan Garber, of Stanford University, argued that America’s health system was “uniquely inefficient”, producing too little per unit of input and consuming far too much of the country’s resources.

"Uniquely inefficient". This should appeal to conservatives.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-15-2010 at 03:16 PM.. Reason: delete redundant phrase
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,173 posts, read 13,350,193 times
Reputation: 14054
Quote:
Originally Posted by twiggy View Post
What do you think will solve the problem about people not being able to afford health care then?
Adopt the European model.

It is so very simple.

First, Congress needs to enact a law that only allows ownership of one hospital per MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area). We have such laws on the books already. You cannot own more than one sports franchise in a market and previously you could not own more than one radio station per band in an MSA (that means you could own one AM radio station and one FM radio station only).

Second, Congress needs to enact strict laws to bar hospitals from colluding to fix prices.

Third, penalize hospitals that offer more than 3 services. Congress can enact a licensing law if the want. An hospital that offers 3 or fewer services pays $10 per year for their license. An hospital that offers more than 3 services has to pay 80% of its gross revenues to obtain the license, or it gets shut down. That would force hospitals to adopt the Capitalist model and Diversify & Specialize just like European hospitals are Diversified & Specialized for the greatest possible efficiency and highest quality care.

If you did those three things, your health care system would be almost exactly like the European health care system, and costs would drop 350% to 600% overnight (for those who just don't get it that means you would be paying ~$2,500 for child-birth, not $9,200 for child birth -- I mean if you got $7,000 to throw away then that's cool).

As I have said (repeatedly) before, I live in an MSA with 3 Million people that has 19 hospitals.

As I have asked (repeatedly) before, someone show me a European city or region that has 3 Million people and 19 hospitals.

I dare anyone to find a European city or region with 3 Million people that has 19 hospitals.

Your health care system is grotesquely inefficient. It is grotesquely inefficient for exactly the reasons I have stated: You have hospital cartels, the hospitals collude to fix prices far above what the market could possibly bear (that means they artificially inflate costs) and they do that in large part because you have pseudo-competition, not real competition and you have an extraordinary amount of redundant services in the name of pseudo-competition.

This was proven beyond any reasonable doubt when a group of doctors attempted to open a cardio-pulmonary center here in Cincinnati. As the Cincinnati Enquirer reported, they would have charged only $13,000 for open heart surgery, while the least expensive hospital charges TWICE AS MUCH $26,000 and some hospitals charge $41,000.

Why? I just told you why. Your health care system is grotesquely inefficient. When you eliminate redundant services, you lower costs.

And no, the doctors didn't get to open their specially diversified clinic because the hospital cartels and insurance lobbyists ran to Columbus and rammed through legislation to block it (as the Enquirer reported) and as reported, the hospitals claimed the clinic would siphon away patients from their hospitals and they wouldn't be able to price gouge them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 04:10 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,850,424 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
Because the principle of economic substitution does not apply but it does apply to all other commerce including all products. If you want a burger or a car you have choice zillions of choices but if you have a heart attack you have one choice and that is a hospital. given that one choice the government has a lawful right to impose choice and restrictions as you when you do have a heart attack will use up funds (mucho funds) to pay for your care. their is no substitute and as such the gov't has a lawful and compelling interest.
The flaw with your argument is the healthcare bill has nothing to do with hospitals.. It has to do with insurance....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 04:12 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,850,424 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post
They, just like I, work under the assumption that you have to have enough money to run the office regardless of getting payments on time. I have $350,000 outstanding right now according to my Quickbooks. Hmmm... I have some customers I now have to send to collections. FUN!
I've got over $600K in outstanding bills at the moment.. Does that mean we should nationalize and regulate the internet and distribution businesses in the nation? Seriously? I have one guy alone that owes me $435,127.50 + interest. This is for a civil judgment.. Do we get to nationalize civil judgments in the nation? You support national healthcare because people OWE you ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2010, 04:16 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,850,424 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2 View Post
Actually I DON'T... that is the point. They already take 33% so if I see a great raise in the quality of life we get, the health care, lower tuition rates = smarter citizens, then NO I don't mind at all.
blah blah blah.. yeah, we get it.. more taxes paid = lower tuition rates Why dont you support a 100% tax rate.. Things would be so cheap that they'd have to be FREE..

Last edited by pghquest; 12-19-2010 at 04:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top