This is the real problem with healthcare and Obamacare (illegal, drug, deaths)
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.
Calm your panties, when I threw the figure of $20 out there I wasn't necessarily suggesting that all operations should be $20 but the cost of health care for one who isn't insured that simply has a cold shouldn't be $500. I was temporarily uninsured a few years back and because I didn't have a private doctor at the time (because I had just moved to MD) my medical bill came up to like $550 for a simple check up that told me everything I already knew. I only saw the doctor once for like two minutes and she only repeated what the nurse said and did. Therefore I consider what I got as a cheap visit, but of course hospitals have to make profit therefore there will be a markup on certain things although the quality of care or what they do is nowhere near $550 but instead like $150.
And I'm not against doctors, I'm against absurd hospital bills for those whom are uninsured. Something as simple as a check-up shouldn't be expensive and I understand to a degree why they are expensive if one goes through the emergency room but nonetheless $500 is a bit high just to say 'ok, I'll put you on some Tylenol 10 MG and we'll get you out of here in a few minutes'.
It's not about insurance companies....it's the cost of the care itself. Obamacare didn't address the real problem correctly, it's just going to make it worse.
The real problem has always been monopolistic control of hospitals by the American Hospital Association, who --- along with the State and federal legislators they bribed -- destroyed the system in America.
The American Hospital Association has increased its strangle-hold and is gaining more control over doctors, and once they have monopolistic control over doctors, that'll be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314
We were there for 4 hours and the bill for the hospital and the doctor is over $5,000. That's the problem...that's ridiculous!
It is not ridiculous.
This is not your 1950's ER.
These are 21st Century ERs with state-of-the-art equipment, technology and surgical methods and procedures that no one in the 1950s could even dream existed.
ER staff (doctors, nurses and techs) are specially trained in trauma --- they command a much higher rate than a garden-variety-run-of-the-mill-ordinary General Practitioner (which is an oxymoron).
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rob123
Your scenario shows why a universal health care plan would have been the way to go.
Except you cannot afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
This is why need a single-payer system for everyone. Open up Medicare for everyone and then Medicare would get to negotiate prices and control costs. This would take a bite out of profits for those involved with the medical field, mind you they would still make good money, but it would save everyone else a lot of money.
That plan would fail. You cannot pay for Medicare now, and expanding it will cost you more than you can afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
When the system is designed to make money for investors it will make money for investors.
You wouldn't be saying that if you understood how your health care system works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
The care provided is secondary to making the money.
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.
This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.
Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.
Canadians die waiting for treatment Americans get within a matter of hours to days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
When the system is designed to provide care for everyone it will not make a lot of money for anyone but will provide minimal care.
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit (London)
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
Oooops.....
That totally refutes your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
We need to eliminate the great inefficiencies in our system created by privately owned and profit driven insurance and care providers.
Insurance has never been the problem ---- the problem has always been the American Hospital Association.
You cannot cite a single piece of legislation at the State or federal level concering health care that was lobbied by health insurance companies.
All of the legislation was enacted at the behest of the American Hospital Association -- who has been trying to gain monopoly control over health care in the US --- and they're just about there and you're helping them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Just eliminating the private insurance company accounting services and managerial over head will save billions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Eliminating health center executive overhead will save a similar amount.
However, in at least one instance, the amount of administrative and facilities costs not shown was about 31 percent—a total of $1.05 billion—of the program’s cost.
That is from the highlights of GAO-12-908, a report to congressional committees in September 2012, just 7 months ago.
That is the source of the 31% figure that has been floating around for the last couple of months......
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) creates its budget request through its Enrollee Health Care Projection Model (EHCPM) using data from systems designed for the former single-account structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
Your data is refutable.
And the world will end before you provide an proof to refute it.
When more people feel the pain of for-profit health insurance....
For profit health insurance is not the problem......maybe one day you'll actually be able to provide documented evidence to support your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Do your homework before posting.
Practice what you preach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Do you live in Europe? My point is one pays taxes for basic care, most do not fall into cracks causing bankruptcy.
Medical debt does not cause bankruptcy.
Your own government refutes that here....
Hearing on “Working Families in Financial Crisis: Medical Debt and Bankruptcy”
Tuesday July 17, 2007 1:00 pm
Room 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT NO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS
Nor is there any evidence that medical bankruptcies are creating any sort of crisis for the bankruptcy system or that the percentage of medical bankruptcies has been rising over time.
A study by Ian Domowitz and Robert Sartain, for instance, find little correlation of medical debt with other sources of financial distress, such as job loss or income interruption.[1] Fay, Hurst, and White find that health problems by the head of a household or spouse that cause missed work are not a statistically significant factor in bankruptcy filings.[2] [1] Ian Domowitz & Robert L. Sartain, Determinants of the Consumer Bankruptcy Decision, 54 J. Fin. 403, 413 (1999).
[2] Scott Fay et al., The Household Bankruptcy Decision, 92 Am. Econ. Rev. 706, 714 (2002).
Aparna Mathur similarly finds that poor health by the head of the household is not a statistically significant predictor of bankruptcy filings.[2]
She also reports that only six percent of participants in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics survey self-reported that illness or injury caused their bankruptcy filing and statistical analysis found no significant correlation between bankruptcy filings and individuals in poor health. [1] Scott Fay et al., The Household Bankruptcy Decision, 92 Am. Econ. Rev. 706, 714 (2002).
[2]See Mathur, Medical Bills and Bankruptcy Filings (summarizing findings of PSID).
Most studies find no medical debt at all in about half of consumer bankruptcy filings and in the overwhelming number of cases where medical debt is listed it is relatively small in amount and unlikely to be a significant contributor to the bankruptcy filing.
A recent study of bankruptcy filers by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of the United States Trustee (USTP) is consistent with the findings of most studies. The USTP examined the records of 5,203 bankruptcy cases filed between 2000 and 2002, the most thorough study of the problem to date of those who actually filed bankruptcy. It reported that 54 percent of the cases in the sample listed no medical debt, meaning that the median amount of medical debt in the study was zero. Medical debt accounted for 5.5 percent of total general unsecured debt and 90.1 percent reported medical debts less than $5,000. There were a few cases where extremely high medical debt likely explained the subsequent filing—one percent of cases accounted for 36.5% of medical debt and less than 10 percent of all cases represented 80% of all reported medical.
Now......about that bogus study from Harvard.....let's look at that.....this is still Congressional Testimony...
First, the finding that half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical problems is based on a fundamentally flawed and over-expansive definition of “medical bankruptcies.”[1] The researchers, for example, count as “medical bankruptcies” such events as gambling addiction, a death in the family, or the birth or adoption of a child, in addition to unexpected illness or injury. [1]See Mathur (“their classification of a medical bankruptcy is too broad”): Fleming (“the very definition of ‘medical bankruptcy’ in this study is a poor one”); Lemieusx (calling definition of health care bankruptcies “very broad”).
Moreover, although some substance abusers and gamblers are addicts, it is not clear why all those who gamble their way into bankruptcy should be assumed to be gambling addicts and thus classified victims of “medical bankruptcy.”
Moreover, they count as a serious medical problem any accumulation of unpaid medical bills of over $1000 within two years of bankruptcy.
They do not report any evidence on how many filers had substantially more than $1000 in unpaid medical bills, the median amount of medical debt, nor the distribution of debt—even after Dranove and Millenstein specifically identified this methodological flaw.[1] In fact, as noted above the study by the United States Trustee found relatively few filers with substantial medical bills and a very small number of filers with very large medical debts. Himmelsein, et al., provides no reason to question this conclusion that the problem of large medical debts is limited to a relatively few number of filers.[2]
[2] The United States Trustee’s office also examined almost three times as many petitions as the Himmelstein study.
They also do not control nor even provide any evidence as to the size of the other obligations of the “medical bankruptcy” filers. Thus, for instance, a debtor with $1001 in unpaid medical bills and $50,000 in student loan debt or tax debt would classify as a medical bankruptcy under the authors’ definition. It is not clear why this hypothetical situation would be classified as a medical bankruptcy.
Finally, they do not attempt to control for the possibility of strategic behavior as part of pre-bankruptcy planning, such as decisions by debtors to pay secured debts, such as mortgages or automobile loans, or nondischargeable unsecured debts, such as student loans, instead of medical debt, which is generally unsecured and dischargeable. Such strategic decisions would tend to inflate the amount of medical debt in bankruptcy relative to its actual proportion outside bankruptcy.
For instance, Mathur reports that in the PSID data she studied, 9 percent of those surveyed self-reported medical bills as the primary reason for filing and 7 percent claimed medical bills as a secondary reason, for a total of 16%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Their healthcare is not hitched to a particular employer,....
And how ironic that the Special Interest Group who wrote Obamacrap™ --- the American Hospital Association --- just happens to be the very same Special Interest Group who crow-barred your health care with your employer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
their supplemental, copays, deductibles are way more affordable than our system. One has the choice to enhance their coverage in many European countries. Here in the States many with group coverage can not. If one is not content with their group coverage one can get independent coverage but lose the protections group enjoys. The US clearly has the worst cluster F^%$^ healthcare delivery system in the entire western world.
In contrast to the Dutch system pre-2006 where the top 30 percent of the population was not permitted to be covered by the statutory scheme, in Germany those earning above €48,000 per year may choose to opt out and either buy private insurance or self insure. The reader who is wondering why an individual in Germany may choose private health insurance needs to understand that for a healthy single individual it is often cheaper to be in the private health insurance plan than to contribute to the social health insurance system (Greβ, 2007). There may also be non-financial incentives for individuals to move to private insurance as the range of services covered by private insurance may be more comprehensive and may include drugs or treatments not covered by social health insurance plans.
Debunked.....
Perhaps you should all be sitting down, because these are the exclusions permitted for VHI/PHI...and while you are reading and weeping, please pay close attention to the exclusions....
Austria
Individual: pre-existing conditions usually excluded (but not from group policies); insurers cannot reject applications but may charge higher premiums and/or introduce cost-sharing arrangements for people with chronic illnesses
Belgium
Mutual: psychiatric and long-term care (lump sum)
Mutual: psychiatric care (co-payment)
Commercial: pre-existing conditions, infertility treatment, sporting injuries
Denmark Pre-existing conditions
Note: Denmark does not cover abortions past the 12th week of pregnancy, unless the Minister of Justice has granted permission.
Think that will fly in the US?
The Minister of Justice only grants permission to save the life of the mother, or prevent additional physical damage to the mother, or in the case it is known the infant has birth defects (euthanasia).
Think that would fly in the US?
Finland
Pregnancy and childbirth, infertility treatment, alcoholism, herbal remedies, treatment covered by statutory health insurance
France
Excluding any disease is forbidden by law, although it can be authorized in individual policies under certain conditions: the disease has to be clearly stated and the insurer has to prove that the patient had the disease before purchasing the policy
Germany
Pre-existing conditions are excluded if they were known at the time of underwriting and were not disclosed by the insured; declared pre-existing conditions are covered but generally result in higher premiums
Greece Pre-existing conditions
Ireland
Open enrollment
Italy
Individual: pre-existing conditions, chronic and recurrent diseases, mental illness, alcohol and drug addiction, cosmetic surgery, war risks, injuries arising from insurrection, natural disasters etc; also often excludes dental care not caused by accident/illness
Group: pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, drug and alcohol addiction, HIV/AIDS, severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia, voluntary termination of pregnancy and war risks
Luxembourg
Mutual: open enrollment (but no cover for treatment excluded from Statutory Health Insurance)
Commercial: pre-existing conditions
Netherlands
Some dental plans may require people to have their teeth restored before acceptance
Portugal
Individual: pre-existing conditions, long-term chronic illnesses (such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and asthma), HIV/AIDS, haemodialysis, self-inflicted injuries, psychiatric treatments, check-ups, dental care, outpatient drugs, alternative medicine and non-evidence based treatment; dental care, delivery costs and outpatient drugs are only covered by the most expensive policies
Spain HIV/AIDS, alcoholism and drug addiction, dental care (often available for a supplementary premium), prosthesis, infertility treatment, orthopaedics etc; some insurers do not have general restrictions but may reject certain conditions; most insurers offer extra benefits for a supplementary premium eg organ transplants, second opinion, family planning, assistance during trips, treatment abroad, certain prosthesis; only one insurer offers homeopathy or spa treatment
Sweden
Emergency care, long-term care, HIV/AIDS, some other communicable diseases, diseases and injuries as a result of the use of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, pre-natal care, child birth (normal or with complications), termination of pregnancy, infertility treatment, vaccinations
UK Pre-existing conditions, GP services, accident and emergency admission, long-term chronic illnesses such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and asthma, drug abuse, self-inflicted injuries, outpatient drugs and dressings, HIV/AIDS, infertility, normal pregnancy and child birth, cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment, preventive treatment, kidney dialysis, mobility aids, experimental treatment and drugs, organ transplants, war risks and injuries arising from hazardous pursuits
That is more singularly outmoded information from the World Health Organization's European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Spring 2004, Volume 6, Number 1 (no copyright restrictions), which I've posted before and some people apparently believe the WHO is floating on an asteroid out in Space.
Actually the UK system beats the US one on every public health measure. Infant mortality, lifespan, years spent in good health, maternal mortality, years lost to ill health, amendable mortality, under-5 mortality, disability-adjusted lifespan, the lot.
The US system scores in the low 30s out of 40 developed nations. And the US taxpayer pay more for government healthcare than all but 3 nations.
I see you're still riding the Fail-Boat.
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent.-- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
********************************
Mortality on the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting: incidence and risk factors
BACKGROUND: Insufficient capacity for coronary artery bypass grafting results in waiting times before operation, prioritization of patients and, ultimately, death on the waiting list. We aimed to calculate waiting list mortality and to identify risk factors for death on the waiting list.
If health care is "cheaper" in Europe, then why do people in Sweden die on waiting lists for procedures that Americans get within days?
The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study
However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.
Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.
If health care is "cheaper" in Canada, then why do people die on waiting lists?
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list.
The delay between the first hospital visit and starting treatment was 35-187 days (median 94);
Limited access to specialists is the reason most often advanced for the poor performance of the UK in treating lung cancer. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
If health care is cheaper in Britain, then why do people die on waiting lists?
Apology accepted.....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
I think we are confusing health of the population with the quality of our medical system.
Yes, it's one of the propaganda mechanisms employed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Americans drive more than people in other nations and as a result our average life span is reduced by traffic fatalities, especial those of young people.
True.
Health care metrics are different for every State.
For example, the OECD does not include the health care costs related to elective cosmetic procedures, for European States, but does include them for the US, to make the cost of health care in the US appear inflated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
We also eat less fish and more red meats than many of the nations listed, and that also impacts public health, but it has nothing to do with our medical apparatus.
Correct again. There are cultural differences for which no health care system can ever account.
However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.
Interpretation: Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death, myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure, which may be preventable. Our findings provide a benchmark by which to measure the effect of increased capacity and prioritization schemes that allow earlier access for patients at higher risk, such as those with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular function.
And that proves that something is terribly, terribly wrong in Canada.
If health care in Canada truly was cheaper than health care in the US, then no Canadian would ever die waiting for a procedure that an American would get within a matter of hours or days.
Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit (London)
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
If health care were truly less expensive in Canada and Britain, then Canada and Britain would have the same number of patients per million population on dialysis as the US....
.....the fact that is not true means health care in Canada and Britain is not cheaper.
It's not about insurance companies....it's the cost of the care itself. Obamacare didn't address the real problem correctly, it's just going to make it worse.
Recently I had to take my mom to the emergency room when she collapsed. She's 91 years old and had been fighting a cold that she had already seen her doctor about. The emergency room doctor was concerned about her having pneumonia so, they did a blood work up, a chest X-ray and a nasal swab. When everything came back normal, they released her with a prescription for an inhaler. We were there for 4 hours and the bill for the hospital and the doctor is over $5,000. That's the problem...that's ridiculous!
Since my mom is 91, she's on Medicare and how much did Medicare pay?......10%. Obamacare will be paying the same rates as Medicare pays....as bad as $5,000 is, paying only $500 is just as ridiculous. This is why more and more doctors are dropping out of Medicare.
What do you have against doctors, anesthesiologists, and nurses ??
What do you have against expensive modern day hospital equipment ??
That money pays the doctors and nurses, and it pays for multi-million dollar hospital equipment.
If you want someone to bash, then bash the drug company CEO's. Those CEO's sell pills for $10.00 each (when the pills cost .2 cents to make.)
Or bash the insurance company CEO's.
But republicans never bash CEO's, they bash the workers.
I have a love hate relationship with pure capitalism, it's great for those who actually know how to utilize it and terrible for those who don't. In regards to health care, capitalism is great in regards to medicine solely because it gives a incentive to create new cures and medicines but actually receiving those medicines is a different challenge. I don't see how medication can be so cheap to make and the company marks the value up hundreds or some times thousands of percent, then the hospital when it administers the drug it also marks it up by hundreds or thousands of percent so at the end were all screwed. Now am I against companies and hospitals marking medicine or selling their services for more than they are worth? Absolutely not, companies and hospitals have to make profit but I just don't like when everything is marked up by thousands.
If you want someone to bash, then bash the drug company CEO's. Those CEO's sell pills for $10.00 each (when the pills cost .2 cents to make.)
What is the cost of bringing those drugs to market? Newsflash: Not only do companies have to recover variable costs they must also recover fixed costs and semi-variable/fixed costs. If you want drug costs to come down support repeal of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment.
What is the cost of bringing those drugs to market? Newsflash: Not only do companies have to recover variable costs they must also recover fixed costs and semi-variable/fixed costs. If you want drug costs to come down support repeal of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment.
If only you defended doctors and nurses, the way you defend the drug companies.
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.
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.
