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)
 
Old 06-09-2019, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Watervliet, NY
4,250 posts, read 1,570,647 times
Reputation: 7804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
I work in the medical field and you would be shocked at how many doctors offices no longer offer employees medical insurance at all (including my own company.) When even doctors don't offer medical insurance, we have a crisis
I had a caller this week who just received a bill for a doctor visit from March 1 for $1400. She had been a nurse and was out on Comp due to falling in the parking lot of the hospital where she worked. Not only did the hospital fire her while she was on Comp but they also never sent her the letter about her insurance end date, or the paperwork to get COBRA. Her insurance ended on 2/23.When she did contact HR about it, they said "COBRA is over $1000, you wouldn't be able to afford it anyway!" As if that's their business!

I resubmitted her eligibility and she was approved for Retro Medicaid and I told her to find out if the doctor she went to accepts Medicaid (she is on Fee For Service Medicaid) and, if they do, to have the bill submitted for payment. She had made up her mind to let the bill just go to collections before calling us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2019, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
14,698 posts, read 8,483,912 times
Reputation: 29399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
I work in the medical field and you would be shocked at how many doctors offices no longer offer employees medical insurance at all (including my own company.) When even doctors don't offer medical insurance, we have a crisis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
Well I can tell you as a doc in private practice at the same location since 1981.

Office business overheads have steadily risen about like any business, while medically related reimbursements have not.

So due to this ongoing squeeze, it becomes progressively less profitable to do a medical office. Even in a low COL area.


So these sorts of perks get progressively harder to offer and stay in business.

I've not had a raise since 1988!

Our office still has a medical plan. But we couldn't cover my wife, as she alone would have doubled everyone elses rates!

In fact I am presently quit of the office taking care of my wife. Possibly to join with our hospital later this year when she is well enough.
I am not criticizing by any means. I've worked the insurance end for my eye docs and I am well aware that when we bill $250 to the insurance company and the patient sees $250 as a billed service on their statement, we don't get anywhere near $250. We might get a $55.70 reimbursement, whatever the insurance allows, and the patient is irate that "You're making all this money. Why do I have to pay a $40 copay also?" That's the rules of the insurance and no, the doctor's office isn't getting rich, even though it looks like it. Still, it's a shame that workers have to search high and low for medical care. And it is much more expensive to pay for medical plans in small offices with few employees.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Watervliet, NY
4,250 posts, read 1,570,647 times
Reputation: 7804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
I did look at your link and couldn't find your maximums.
Thank you.
You do then have catastrophic overage. Good for you!
Let's hope I never have to use it! I have savings, and throw aside $$ from my paycheck every Friday, but I wish this plan's costs were more reasonable. My deductible for my old employer plan was a mere $600/ year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 11:04 AM
 
8,881 posts, read 3,933,647 times
Reputation: 1720
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContraPagan View Post
Let's hope I never have to use it! I have savings, and throw aside $$ from my paycheck every Friday, but I wish this plan's costs were more reasonable. My deductible for my old employer plan was a mere $600/ year.
That is the major issue with Obamacare. Too high OOP costs for the broad younger and healthier middle class.

If I were king I'd give back 1/3 of middle class patients/families yearly OOP spending, if they tow their medical line and don't over use HC services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 11:08 AM
 
12,843 posts, read 4,645,233 times
Reputation: 5213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
lol As if that's the only option. Stop with the fake drama
So what is the option then? Insurance companies are not going to insure a 75 year old with heart problems. He'll have to die in the free market paradise unless he has millions to pay out of pocket for his health care needs.

No country has a free market health care system for the elderly. Its absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,904 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16088
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Where is your proof to back up your bolded assertions about the study in the OP?
They were too busy backing Billary in 2016 to make this claim in favor of Bernie, but Billary isn't running now.

And, yes, this same Bill comes up every year since it was first introduced in 2012 I think it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
BTW, no one's disputing the $32 Trillion price tag. In fact, the Koch Brothers' study that also reached the conclusion of there being a $32 Trillion price tag says Medicare for All would be cheaper than the current system by at least $2 Trillion.
Did you read the study? Did you understand what you read?

Their conclusions are not drawn from facts, rather they're based on assumptions.

Their primary assumption is that consumption of healthcare will only increase 12% over the entire 10 year period.

That is a patently absurd assumption.

I'm sure some idiot will open their festering gob and say b-b-b-b-but only 8.8% of Americans are uninsured.

That idiot did not read the Bill and doesn't understand it.

The Bill expands coverage, and I don't mean for people, I mean for medical treatments, procedures and such that aren't currently covered by private insurance or Medicare or Medicaid.

That alone will increase consumption by 18%.

The Bill provides comprehensive mental health services.

That will increase consumption, too. Mental health isn't a one-shot deal. You don't go to a therapist once and that's it. You go weekly or bi-weekly for months and years even.

It provides comprehensive substance abuse treatment. It also provides coverage for services not currently covered such as dental, vision, hearing and podiatry.

Dental coverage is 100% comprehensive. It includes everything except cosmetic dentistry.

Consumption is going to increase 40% to 50% over the next 10 years, not 12%.

The study also claims costs will decrease 19% which is another fantasy.

First, they're just plain wrong. Administrative costs by government are not cheaper.

That's just disingenuous sleight of hand.

When you look at costs per enrollee, Medicare administrative costs, Medicaid administrative costs and VA administrative costs are higher than the private sector. Most studies calculate private sector costs by subtracting claims paid from premiums received, but they don't consider the fact that insurance companies pay regulatory fees to the States.

The study also claims that 19% reduction comes from negotiating prescription drug prices for a reduction of 42%.

The strange thing is the study states in no uncertain terms it costs $2.9 Billion to bring one drug to the market. That does not include future litigation costs for the drug.

You can't slash drug prices 42% without also negatively impacting Research & Development for new drugs, which, by the way, actually reduce medical costs.

The remainder is supposedly due to lower reimbursement rates to medical care providers, which will be 40% lower than Medicare currently pays.

If you trust the American Hospital Association -- I don't, but many of you worship them and kiss their asses -- in 2014, hospitals were reimbursed 89% for Medicare and 90% for Medicaid patients and those losses were offset by billing private insurance at higher rates at 144% of costs.

See: American Hospital Association, TrendWatch Chartbook 2016: Trends Affecting Hospitals and Health Systems, 2016 (specifically look in the appendix at Table 4.4).

If you believe that to be true, and I believe it to be at least true in part, then government is actually driving up the cost of healthcare.

In other words, private insurance is subsidizing the true cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

That means we're all being screwed every which way but loose.

I do trust CMS, and if you read Projected Medicare Expenditures (Office of the Actuary) published June 5, 2018, then 80% of hospitals are losing money on Medicare patients.

Bernie's Medicare-for-All cuts payments even more.

The study's claim that money will be saved is pure bull-****.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 12:45 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,904 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16088
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad View Post
Canadians live longer than Americans.
Are you using Life-Expectancy from Birth or Life-Expectancy from Age 65?

There is a difference. Obviously you didn't know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Don't think so. The private healthcare system is robbing us blind with the price of drugs and medical costs.
That's because of State and federal government interference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Capitalism baby!
This has nothing to do with Capitalism and everything to do with State and federal governments interfering mucking things up.

Do you deny that FDR levied a Wage & Price Freeze?

FDR's extremely bad erroneous policy is the one of the reasons your employer lords over your healthcare.

Do you deny the National Labor Board declared health insurance to be a fringe benefit?

That error by your government is another reason your employer lords over your healthcare.

Do you deny that the US Supreme Court issued its 1949 In re: Inland Steel decision?

That error by your government is another reason your employer lords over your healthcare.

Do you deny that Congress changed the IRS Tax Code in 1954 to ban the practice of tying life-insurance with health insurance at the behest of the American Hospital Association to keep you from profiting off of your healthcare?

Used to be you paid premiums for 10 years, then you never paid another dime the rest of your life, but you and your spouse (and minor children) were covered until the day you die, and then you get all your money back, plus a huge profit.

Why do you hate the poor so much?

Why don't you want poor people to pass money onto their kids, so their kids can buy houses or pay college tuition for the grand-kids?

Do you deny the States enacted "enabling laws?"

Those laws and other State laws granted hospitals monopoly status.

Why do you worship monopolies?

If monopolies are so great, then shouldn't we have oil monopolies? Shouldn't Amazon and Wal-Mart be monopolies?

What kind of hypocrite rails against oil monopolies, but worships hospital monopolies?

You all keep screaming you want a healthcare system like Europe, except Europe doesn't have monopolies.

Do you not see a problem with that?

The Swiss ban monopolies. Not only that, but the Swiss only allow one owner per canton to encourage competition in healthcare.

That's one reason the Swiss spend less than you.

Do you deny State mandates drive up the cost of health insurance?

If your health insurance was like Liberty Mutual's auto insurance, everyone could afford it.

Why don't you want people to afford health plan coverage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
That is a private insurance company charging you those rates.
Under State mandates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 12:51 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
30,019 posts, read 16,602,555 times
Reputation: 22592
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
You misunderstand my posts here. The working class is getting hammered with taxes to pay for those who have the largest medical expenses (Medicare) and those who don't earn enough. We are carrying our luggage and those of too many others.

The working class would like to benefit also as we pay for all the others as well as ourselves.

Lets make it one big medical insurance pool for all, a.k.a. Medicare for all.

I completely agree that we are carrying the burden. But I want to start with a Medicare Option and see how that goes.

If it goes well - people will be clamoring for Medicare for all AND we will have eased into it.

No way is turtle-neck going to pass a medicare for all bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 01:10 PM
 
18,269 posts, read 10,371,545 times
Reputation: 13329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Are you using Life-Expectancy from Birth or Life-Expectancy from Age 65?

There is a difference. Obviously you didn't know that.
And your point would be what exactly; since OECD data shows Canada doing better for both scores?

https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/lif...y-at-birth.htm

https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/lif...ancy-at-65.htm

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...countries_2019
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2019, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,732 posts, read 9,845,111 times
Reputation: 9851
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9 View Post
Good try, but you left out the biggest cause: Government imposes wage freeze during World War II, so employers give employees health insurance instead of pay raises so that the payer is no longer the patient.
NOPE
1930, $66 bought a mom in Kansas a 10-day hospital stay and delivery of her new baby.
($4/day for the room)

http://blog.sfgate.com/tbrayer/2010/...ildbirth-1930/
$50 hospital bill for 10 day stay for childbirth and maternity care in LA

http://www.latimes.com/tn-gnp-1117-v...day-story.html
($4/day for the room in a ward. A front corner room went for $10 per day.)
. . .
Wartime
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/725501821191774070/
$100 hospital bill from 1943 for a 10-day hospital maternity stay.

Post War
1947 $70 maternity bill
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/02/opinio...ne-birth-bill/

AFTER THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
Hospital Birth Costs in the 21st century
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/con...ospital-costs/
On average, U.S. hospital deliveries cost $3,500 per stay.
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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