Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 12-20-2009, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,783,221 times
Reputation: 3550

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Yes because thegovernment is less likely to approve care.

Healthcare Economist · Medicare more likely to deny claims than commerical health insurers

Do you think they will magically start increasing coverage if they are the only game in town?


Yes less invoation would reduce costs it would also decrease quality of life. Everyone who wants less innovation raise your hands.
It's precisely those kind of statements the book I am reading talks about.

I am fine with having less expensive technology if it works just as well as the more expensive technology.

If only more people would read Taming The Beast and see how idiotic such fear tactics such as "less innovation" are.

But as the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,747,059 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
What I don't get is why health insurance companies and Medicare don't just take a hard line. They should just say, "This is the price we will pay and if you can't accept that price, we'll go elsewhere." Eventually hospitals will realize they can't keep raising prices if they want to stay in business.

That is exactly what they do. Do you think a provider submits a bill and gets paid? No no my friend, the provider submits and ICD9 code for a procedure and they are told what they will be reimbursed for that procedure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,783,221 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
That is exactly what they do. Do you think a provider submits a bill and gets paid? No no my friend, the provider submits and ICD9 code for a procedure and they are told what they will be reimbursed for that procedure.
I realize that.
What I am saying is that if a hospital or doctor has a history of submitting huge claims, why not refuse to do business with them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,747,059 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
It's precisely those kind of statements the book I am reading talks about.

I am fine with having less expensive technology if it works just as well as the more expensive technology.

If only more people would read Taming The Beast and see how idiotic such fear tactics such as "less innovation" are.

But as the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss."
I must say your understanding of medical economics is non existent. So your evaluation of some book which proclaims innovation is a bad thing leaves me less than impressed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 14,783,221 times
Reputation: 3550
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
I must say your understanding of medical economics is non existent. So your evaluation of some book which proclaims innovation is a bad thing leaves me less than impressed.
It's not saying innovation is bad.
What is bad is constantly demanding more expensive technology when the existing technology is just fine.

There is a documentary put out by PBS which explores the health care system in other countries. Japan has a pretty nice industry of producing low cost medical machines.

It'd be nice if you actually read the book instead of making up stupid claims.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5337931.shtml
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,747,059 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
I realize that.
What I am saying is that if a hospital or doctor has a history of submitting huge claims, why not refuse to do business with them?

Huh? Are you claiming Medicare fraud? Otherwise they submit claims for procedures performed and are reimbursed what the government or insurance company will pay.

OK lets try this suppose the government will pay $5,000 for a procedure. The doctor performs the procedure and submits a claim. On that claim is an ICD9 code, not a dollar amount. It is not as if the doctor submits a $10,000 bill to Medicare and gets paid. No Medicare sees the ICD 9 code and then pays $5,000 because that is what that code pays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,747,059 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
It's not saying innovation is bad.
What is bad is constantly demanding more expensive technology when the existing technology is just fine.

There is a documentary put out by PBS which explores the health care system in other countries. Japan has a pretty nice industry of producing low cost medical machines.

It'd be nice if you actually read the book instead of making up stupid claims.

Too Many Unnecessary MRIs and CT Scans? - CBS Evening News - CBS News

Saying existing technology is just fine is silly. In instances where exisiting technology is better than new technology, the new technology will not be adopted. You and the author seem to think new technology is accepted simply because it is new.

As for over use of technology institute tort reform and you would see that fixed pretty quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:51 PM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,406,421 times
Reputation: 6388
You think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,450,777 times
Reputation: 27720
Cosmetic surgery isn't covered under insurance and that still is affordable.
Why do you think ? (hint: because there is no insurance..all costs are out of pocket so they have to be reasonable).

Just like years ago when you only needed insurance for hospitalization. Doctor visits were reasonable; prescriptions were reasonable; treatment was reasonable. Why ? Because they had to be paid out of pocket. Once the middle man came in (insurance) costs skyrocketed and the higher they got, the more everyone needed insurance just to go for a doctor visit.

Think people..think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2009, 08:57 PM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,777,875 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Government run anything is much less efficient than private enterprise. Rationing of services will occur, it must happen if 30 million more people will be insured and costs go down. CEOs don't make enough to cover 30 million more people.

Once you get rid of the profit motive quality and innovation drop.
Your rationale is illogical.
Rationing of services already occurs even with top of the line coverage.
Quality & Innovation in insurance? Quality is pay the bill. The only innovation they have at their disposal is inventing ways to exempt themselves from a claim, causing doctors to hire a full blown administrative staff to chase them down like children for basic contract obligations. How much do you suppose that costs, since every realized cost ultimately gets passed down to consumers?

Anyone else concerned about rates going up-- tell me when they failed to go up exponentially since 1990. I worked for a fortune 500 company with excellent bennies but kept paying more and more for less and less policy until it stopped being a bennie. My corporation had considerable bargaining power and were frustrated to no end attempting to negotiate. They went shopping around and found they were in Russia because there was only one brand with a different label. Small business doesn't stand a shot in the dark winning a fair policy if fortune 500 can't manage.

Contrast my insurance premiums with the story of that Doctor in NYC who put his patients on a pre emptive payment plan for regular care- something like $25 odd a month. The NYS insurance commissioner frowned. Wonder who blew the whistle on him? Guaranteed it wasn't his patients who otherwise could not afford any doctor. Why would insurance companies be so vexed when Doctors cut out the middleman?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top