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.
I have a brother who is a Dr. He said that there is no puffary in this piece. He said that the part about a chargemaster that charges people 199 dollars for what Medicare pays 25 dollars for is absolutely true.
Next Insurance company's don't pay what Medicare pays.
We are going to have to dismantle our system and make it some type of Medicare for all. Those who fight against it are either ignorant or are getting the bucks from the system. There is a reason that a drug dealer does not want Marijuana leaglaized, when you make money of a flawed system you don't want the system changed.
We are gong to have to go to a single payer system or it will collapse. As of now more and more businesses can not afford to pay for health care for employees
What will have to happen is more and more people are going to have to feel the affects of this broken system before it gets through their ignorant heads that we have to change.
Insurance Co.'s usually pay the same as Medicare, and sometimes less. Paying more is the minority.
Great post, but a lot of words for
Medicare for all
If you want to see what insurance adds to medical costs. Ask your doctor what the cost is without insurance, as a self pay. then see what they charge the insurance co. It is NEVER the same.
Want lower health care costs get insurance out of it....That is the problem with Obamacare . Expand Medicare into Obamacare and we will all be better off.
Every hospital maintains a unique Chargemaster for every unit imaginable.
This is the "rack rate" paid by self-pay. This is what the wealthy Arab pays for services while in the U.S. on medical tourism no different than the guy who lost his job and benefits and cannot afford COBRA.
By law, Medicare pays costs, including overhead, equipment and salaries.
Insurance companies pay Medicare cost, +. They don't have the law on their side.
Then why wasn't Obamacare based on expanding Medicare instead of giving 30 million customers to his campaign donor insurance companies?
Seems like it would have been a perfect time to try Medicare as a choice for people who need to purchase health insurance, yet Obamacare ignored it and is giving the money to private companies.
Hey, that sounds like Ryan care! Obamacare is giving subsidies and taxcredits (aka vouchers) for people to buy insurance from private companies instead of using govt run Medicare.
Who knew, Obama "out Ryaned" Ryan,lol
I'm sure the insurance companies are thankful though
The Times Report made the following conclusions:
Outlaw the chargemaster except for foreign medical tourism
Amend patent laws to limit how manufacturers can and do exploit the monopoly the patent gives them.
Reduce drug prices to what the manufacturers get paid in other countries.
Cap what Medicare and insurers can pay for CT scans and MRIs.
Cap profits on lab tests.
Embarass the Democrats to stop their legacy fight against malpractice reform.
I agree. In what universe do our for-profit corporations want competition? The sad thing is that many of you actually believe our for-profit corporate giants want free markets.
The profits are used to acquire the competition to sustain and grow monopolies.
Can't argue with the facts that are in this article. Medical costs are on a runaway train. The only system that is keeping these costs in check is Medicare.
"Last July, I wrote about a landmark study conducted at the University of Virginia that found that surgical patients on Medicaid are 13 percent more likely to die than those without insurance of any kind. The study evaluated 893,658 major surgical operations from around the country from 2003 to 2007, and normalized the results for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 background diseases.
Patients on Medicare were 45% more likely to die than those with private insurance; the uninsured were 74% more likely; and Medicaid patients 93% more likely. That is to say, despite the fact that we will soon spend more than $500 billion a year on Medicaid, Medicaid beneficiaries, on average, fared worse than those with no insurance at all."
Seems we might be flip-flopping between Medicare and Medicaid, here.
Who are the folk eligble for Medicare who are uninsured? Is there anything that precludes anyone 65 or older from Medicare? Are we comparing a wealthy self-pay Arab on a global medical tour mission who arrives in the U.S. on his private jet who is immediately transported by limo to his hospital of choice? The typical elderly patient does not have the resources to fly anywhere for the best care.
Medicaid is a different ball of wax. This is where one is likely to have the sickest of the sick middle-aged patient who is tapped out and has a fatal diagnosis hoping for a better outcome. He's blown through the caps on his policy or was not insured to start.
It's not clear that you read the Time Report. It is not anti insurance and acknowledges insurance pays a premium over Medicare which by law pays for the cost of service, including overheard, but no profit.
It also addresses the " claims" made by hospitals that they lose money on Medicare patients. If this were the case, hospitals would not be heavily advertizing for Medicare patients in places where the elderly tend to live. Drive around Florida and Texas, some time.
The report does not name the Americal Hospital Association by name. It does however talk to the substantial ongoing lobbying of Congress by all health care interests, including hospitals, big pharm and medical equipment manufacturers. It holds Congress responsible and does so without being partisan.
It also gets into the whole social and economic impact of hospitals on communities. They may be the largest employer. They are the darling cause of the ultra wealthy. Politians are afraid to come out as anti-hospital and get reelected.
I agree. In what universe do our for-profit corporations want competition? The sad thing is that many of you actually believe our for-profit corporate giants want free markets.
In what universe do you think the tremendous advancements in medical procedures have come from?
Do you actually think we would have these advancements WITHOUT for-profit corporations?
Do you think the federal government run medical industry would have come up with them?
Lets just ignore the 40-50 billion in medicare fraud/elephant in the room while celebrating medicare
From what I can recall, Medicare fraud is about 10% +/- of total outlays. The fraud is primarily erroneous billings by hospitals and medical groups. This level of fraud is in line with greater insurance fraud prevelant since the first insurance policy was written.
There's no evidence that a doctor can cure cancer. Doesn't matter if the patient is on medicaid, medicare or has insurance.
If they could we wouldn't have all these cancer research foundations searching for a cure.
The $ million diagnosis.
The Times Report also goes into the profit of prestigious Cancer Care.It's marketing 101. Create the brand. Increase market share. Grow the brand and kill the local competition who offers the same serivce at a lesser price than the brand name. Rince a repeat.
Then there's a fund raising aspect. Sloan-Kettering pays one of their many development officers $1,483,000 a year. In contrast, the Museum of Modern Art pays its top development officer $345,000. Harvard pays $392,000.Hospitals use hospital comp consultants and so hopital admin comp becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We live in a community which has about 100,000 in a 20 mile radius. There are only a handful of primary care doctors who will accept medicare, with the majority of primary care physicians refusing new medicare patients. Some doctors are going to a concierge practice with a limited amount of patients paying a fee guaranteeing them access to a physician. Others are simply not accepting Medicare because of the low reimbursement paid by the government. The only physicians accepting Medicare are inundated with new patients who have lost their primary care physicians, so there is sometimes a three or four week delay in being able to see a physician.
I've heard that most physicians have not had an increase in Medicare reimbursement in the last two decades. Who else hasn't had a pay increase in the last twenty years?
Really,...it makes no difference that medicare is controlling costs if there is no physician who will accept medicare. If Obamacare is fashioned after medicare (which the government says is the model) how many doctors are going to accept that low reimbursement, especially when several million new patients are added to the equation?
Do you think it's possible you might be confusing Medicare with Medicaid? Of course this can all vary of region. In my neck of the woods, everyone accepts medicare patients. Thisis not the case with Medicaid.
There is also a trend towards concierge services for both insured and Medicare patients. Those who are willing and able to pay more, get more time and attention. I have no clue of their outcomes are better than anyone else's.
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.
