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.
See, this is the whole problem. You seem to think that 'short on cash' only applies to health care when, in fact, it applies to everything. You're also persistently ignoring the whole point of what I'm suggesting: that a rational market in health care - undistorted by inflationary manipulation by the federal government - will bring prices more in line with what people "short on cash" can afford.
Quote:
Overheads are so high that hospital margins are quite thin.
More special pleading. How'd they get so high? Simple - from decades of being able to pad the bill because they're not dealing directly with consumers but, rather, dealing with an entity whose interests are only very loosely related to those of the patient/consumer. The controls in this experiment - businesses in every other market sector - also have overhead. They manage to keep the cost of that overhead manageable; in fact, they're forced to due to their direct economic relationship to the consumer.
Quote:
With free markets you think that somehow my overheads would be lower today, and then there would be substantial savings for my patients?
As I've been stressing: we haven't had anything remotely resembling a free market in health care for decades.
As to the other points, any significant change will have to be phased in over time, yes. Paul Ryan actually proposed a very sound plan to do just that years ago (ca. the "Health Care Summit"). He was demonized by political opposition and the media, who all claimed - falsely - that he was really aiming for exactly what is happening under Obamacare right now: people losing their plans, losing their doctors, having their premiums hiked instead of reduced... and we haven't even gotten to the real 'good stuff' in ACA yet.
See, this is the whole problem. You seem to think that 'short on cash' only applies to health care when, in fact, it applies to everything. You're also persistently ignoring the whole point of what I'm suggesting: that a rational market in health care - undistorted by inflationary manipulation by the federal government - will bring prices more in line with what people "short on cash" can afford.
Of course it applies to everything. But the Federal Gov't has pushed deflation, both at the hospital and office level. Technologies and seniors are the 'culprit'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserZero
More special pleading. How'd they get so high? Simple - from decades of being able to pad the bill because they're not dealing directly with consumers but, rather, dealing with an entity whose interests are only very loosely related to those of the patient/consumer. The controls in this experiment - businesses in every other market sector - also have overhead. They manage to keep the cost of that overhead manageable; in fact, they're forced to due to their direct economic relationship to the consumer.
Hospitals will give you all sorts of reasons. Overheads are the major. And no doubt there are distortions inherent to insurance and third parties. But look what you're asking for, and look what I and my hospital make in profit today. We can squeeze a few percent out of the hospital, I know this as fact, but ours is a very successful hospital, relatively based on size, than most any other. So most hospitals are running on a few percent profit or worse. And my office, with already the leanest of overheads, is only making money today because of recent centrally directed primary care bonuses. I don't like it, but I won't be running my office at a loss. And with my simple and lean overheads, in a very low cost of living local environment, if I can't make it, very few medical offices in the USA can make it. i.e. most likely my free market fees would be higher today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserZero
As to the other points, any significant change will have to be phased in over time, yes. Paul Ryan actually proposed a very sound plan to do just that years ago (ca. the "Health Care Summit"). He was demonized by political opposition and the media, who all claimed - falsely - that he was really aiming for exactly what is happening under Obamacare right now: people losing their plans, losing their doctors, having their premiums hiked instead of reduced... and we haven't even gotten to the real 'good stuff' in ACA yet.
Professionally and personally I have been more associated with HC delivery reforms, particularly Medicare, than insurance reforms. But my opinion of Obamacare from the start was that it is too much at once, too complicated and with too many unintended possibilities. I have always been one for incrementalism. But I do not think we're going back, or that we will reverse the bulk of Obamacare. Each item of new policy will have to work its own way out over time, and I believe the bulk will do so over this next decade. IMO plenty of good will be vetted out and remain. I and my family of 4 have all benefited from recent Obamacare enrollment. So there must be many others out there happy about this change.
But again, probably my major point that you and most all don't grasp. And that is medicine is different than most any other sectors or businesses or insurances because of the drastic differences between seniors and the rest of society. And we will essentially ALL be seniors at some point in time, so it applies to us all. I don't think that many have big reasons to fight free markets when dealing with non-seniors. (Aside from the poor and disabled)
See, this is the whole problem. You seem to think that 'short on cash' only applies to health care when, in fact, it applies to everything. You're also persistently ignoring the whole point of what I'm suggesting: that a rational market in health care - undistorted by inflationary manipulation by the federal government - will bring prices more in line with what people "short on cash" can afford.
More special pleading. How'd they get so high? Simple - from decades of being able to pad the bill because they're not dealing directly with consumers but, rather, dealing with an entity whose interests are only very loosely related to those of the patient/consumer. The controls in this experiment - businesses in every other market sector - also have overhead. They manage to keep the cost of that overhead manageable; in fact, they're forced to due to their direct economic relationship to the consumer.
As I've been stressing: we haven't had anything remotely resembling a free market in health care for decades.
As to the other points, any significant change will have to be phased in over time, yes. Paul Ryan actually proposed a very sound plan to do just that years ago (ca. the "Health Care Summit"). He was demonized by political opposition and the media, who all claimed - falsely - that he was really aiming for exactly what is happening under Obamacare right now: people losing their plans, losing their doctors, having their premiums hiked instead of reduced... and we haven't even gotten to the real 'good stuff' in ACA yet.
76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and that includes wealthy folks as well.
76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and that includes wealthy folks as well.
Non sequitur.
If they're "wealthy" then, by definition, they're not living paycheck-to-paycheck because they have wealth.
Perhaps this is really referring to highly-paid folks who, even though they're highly paid, still live well beyond their means (i.e., paycheck-to-paycheck).
Used to be if you didn't have medical insurance and a medical emergency struck the cost of being uninsured would bankrupt you.
You're going to start hearing of a new phenomenon real soon: even if you DO have medical insurance the cost of co-pays, deductibles, premiums, fees, etc. will also drive you to bankruptcy.
Case in point: my elderly mother was hospitalized for seven days. Cost $210/day co-pay. Total rounded: $1500. Ambulance transport (3 trips when all is over) $250 co-pays x3: $750. Rehabilitation $50/day up to a total of 100 days: 30 days estimate stay at facility: $1500. Various fees: $250. Total: (approx.) $4000.
Fortunately we have the funds to pay. But there many families out there living on the edge with part-time jobs that provide scant medical insurance for which the copays and deductibles are even higher. How do they meet an obligation that wipes out in one occurrence what little savings they've been able to put away. Even gap insurance won't completely cover the c's and d's.
Medical costs will bankrupt this country eventually as the population ages, more and more seniors drop into Medicaid territory and copays and deductibles rise higher and higher. Won't look pretty in 20-30 years.
I guess part of the lesson is, if your lifestyle costs more than you could get in SSDI, you need to purchase disability insurance.
Another part of the lesson is, don't spend all your money. Always have something for emergencies.
That study used a $5000 cutoff to consider a bankruptcy medical, or 10% of income, which implies they were mainly thinking of cases with a HH income around $50k a year.
$50k a year with kids is one thing, but $50k a year if you are single should have no problem paying $5000 a year for medical bills. $5k a year is less than a lot of people spend on eating out and having more housing space than they really need. It could easily be paid just by cutting lifestyle.
I pay over $450/ month for health insurance from my employer and I still have to pay lots of money.
Labs are only covered 80%.
Doctora around here have most pts sign a form with their bank account number or credit card or else the pts won't be seen. The reason?
Example.
Your doctors charges $500 for a regular appointment.
Your insurance only pays $350 of the bill.
The doctor loses out $150,so the Doctors around here chase the pt for the rest.
Instead of sending bills,the doctors deduct the balance from your bank account or credit card.
I pay over $450/ month for health insurance from my employer and I still have to pay lots of money.
Labs are only covered 80%.
Doctora around here have most pts sign a form with their bank account number or credit card or else the pts won't be seen. The reason?
Example.
Your doctors charges $500 for a regular appointment.
Your insurance only pays $350 of the bill.
The doctor loses out $150,so the Doctors around here chase the pt for the rest.
Instead of sending bills,the doctors deduct the balance from your bank account or credit card.
That's some pretty darn good pay for the doc even at $350! What kind of doc?
This isn't a new phenomenon. I had no assets when I was diagnosed with cancer at 23, but if I had, I would have likely filed for bankruptcy. And I had pretty good insurance! Instead, my credit is going to take years to fix. The copays and medications alone in 6 months were close to my yearly take-home - and that's not even counting increased transportation, laundry, cleaning, and food costs.
That's why the ACA requires a $6000 (or whatever it is) out of pocket maximum per year... If you had an insurance policy that meets the requirements of Obamacare, you wouldn't have had to pay close to your yearly take home.
That's why the ACA requires a $6000 (or whatever it is) out of pocket maximum per year... If you had an insurance policy that meets the requirements of Obamacare, you wouldn't have had to pay close to your yearly take home.
Huh?? The study under discussion considers a bankruptcy medical if one's OOP exceeds even $5,000/year, which is less than the deductible of $6,000/year you just mentioned!
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.
