OT: Health care struck down

Page 14 of 16  


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 20:10:27 -0800 (PST), BobR

here is your ENTIRE ORIGINAL post
there is not a SINGLE reference ANYWHERE. NONE.

You are mostly right, it is so highly regulated and controled by the government that it can't be called "free market" at all.

While there is not one price schedule for all patients across providers, it is required that all patients be billed the same regardless of rather they are self-pay, insurance or government pay. What is billed and what is collected are two totally different things though and there can be allowance for self-pay by a discount. This is the only business or industry or service that I know of that collecting $.25 cents on every dollar billed is considered to be good.

And most people never look at those summaries.

And many times the provider will not even bother because the cost of the billing and collection process will exceed the collectable amount. On average the percentage charges by the companies that handle the billing and collections for medical providers is in the 15-20% range. It would be substantially higher if they had to bill each individual and collect from the individual instead of the insurance companies.

I would like to agree with you but in reality much of the current system is a direct result of the government involvement and rules established by Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other often overlapping government regulations. Hell, much of the reason for the high billing amount of the current system goes back to the Carter price controls which essentially taught providers to increase their prices by the maximum allowable regardless of rather they needed to or not. If they didnn't, they would be penalized if they did need to raise prices.

There are some admitted problems but they could and should be addressed individually rather than this throw out the whole thing and try an experiment that could and in my opinion would be far worse for everybody. There have been many great ideas submitted over the years that were disgarded without consideration because they did not conform to the long term goal of a government controlled socialist system. I sure don't agree that the solution is to force people to buy something that they may or may not need or want. Its bad enough to force people to pay for a system for over 40 years before they have any opportunity to benefit from it...if they live that long and they can find a provider to accept it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/maintenance/OT-Health-care-struck-down-618476-.htm benz wrote: Under the Iraq \"War Act\" the United States provides healthcare to all Iraq's. Are we fools? No, the U.S. knew there would be no civil order or re-building unless the Iraq's were not burdened with health costs/concerns. No matter what Washington our the talking heads say our policy in Iraq tells you all you need to know. Malpractice Insurance is simple, sign a waiver not to sue or retain your right to sue and bill accordingly. bpuharic wrote:

------------------------------------- _ _ _ _ | |_ | |__ (_) ___ (_) ___ _ __ ___ _ _ | __|| '_ \\ | |/ __| | |/ __| | '_ ` _ \\ | | | | | |_ | | | || |\\__ \\ | |\\__ \\ | | | | | || |_| | \\__||_| |_||_||___/ |_||___/ |_| |_| |_| \\__, | |___/ _ _ ___ (_) __ _ _ __ __ _ | |_ _ _ _ __ ___ / __|| | / _` || '_ \\ / _` || __|| | | || '__|/ _ \\ \\__ \\| || (_| || | | || (_| || |_ | |_| || | | __/ |___/|_| \\__, ||_| |_| \\__,_| \\__| \\__,_||_| \\___| |___/ _ /_/_ .'''. =O(_)))) ...' `. \\_\\ `. .'''B'zzzzzzzzzzz `..' . / V\\ / ` / < < | / | / | / | / \\ \\ / ( ) | | ________| _/_ | | < _________\\______)\\__) | | | _ | _________|__( )__|_________ x/ _| |( . )| |_ \\x |_| ---*|_| benz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/31/2011 6:29 PM, bpuharic wrote:

In your opinion only Liberals should be rich? What a mind you must have.
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bpuharic wrote:

Right now the plan is for everbody to get poorer.
If the court rules as you suspect, at least SOME will be better off.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's equality for 'ya.

Contributors will be better off. Bums won't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

these the same guys that said it was OK for the saudi's to buy our elections?
those the guys you talking about?

already exists
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bpuharic wrote:

I WISH the Saudi's would pump millions into our elections!
People get involved in politics for one of three reasons: Pride, Power, or Profit.
Regarding "profit." Somebody has to print the literature, yard signs, and bumper stickers. TV spots have to be written, produced, filmed, and then shown. Many - sometimes hundreds - of telephones have to be installed, computerized lists generated, mailings sent. Even the volunteer card-pushers at the polling places on election day are entitled to a KFC lunch.
For any given candidate, there are dozens (sometimes thousands) of disparate groups that receive money to futher the candidate.
So, if the Saudis DO send over a bunch of money, well, we're only getting some of ours back.
Where's the bad?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
?

Second time Teddy F'd up healthcare. He was the vote that killed it years ago because he was PO'd at Everett Dirckson.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Did Ted Kennedy kill it twice? I don't know about the above incident, but Jimmy Carter was blasting Kennedy recently on 60 Minutes, claiming Kennedy killed it to screw him. Can't be to screw both Carter and Dirksen, because Dirksen was gone long before Carter was president.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"HeyBub" <heybub NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

One of the problems is that the one-way media does not ask the right questions of our leaders. Half of our leaders say one thing, and the other half says another. That is when the media should say "Wait a minute, who is telling the truth?" But, in fact, the only concern the one-way media has is what will be their next big story. The healthcare (Obamacare) law being overturned is just another big story, most of the one-way media could see it coming. Naturally the one-way media did not seriously question the legislation, because they knew the declaration of it being unconstitutional would give them another big story. All the one-way media has to do is present arguments that satisfy the average reader/viewer, even though they know better.
The other reason of course is that the one-way media has its own biases. But they all want another big story, so they do not care about upcoming problems, even when those problems are easy to foretell.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only one media I know of even attempts to go in that direction. And that is Fox News. Maybe that's why of the top 12 news shows in the ratings, all 12 are on Fox. They have their own bias, which we all know. But they do take the discussion to that level and shows like O'Reilly regularly have people from the other side on to discuss their point of view and debate it.
But do you really expect or want CBS to do that, especialy in this case? You have two federal judges that have ruled in favor of the current healthcare law and two that have voted against it. Even when it gets to the Supreme Court, we all know it will be a split vote. Getting more involved in who's right or wrong would take them from reporting the news to editorializing on it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Well, the law actually deals with health INSURANCE which is not the same thing as health CARE.
I never understood the rationale. Of the 30 million "uninsured:"
* 12 million are illegal aliens. They get sick, we ship 'em home (or, my preference, bill their home country). * About 10 million are poor and eligible for Medicaid. They'll sign up when they get sick. * Maybe 3 million are self-insured. That is, they have ample resources to cover almost any contingency. * There are perhaps 5 million who simply do not want insurance. They're willing to take a chance.
That leaves a total of EIGHT people in the whole country without insurance who could really use it. For EIGHT people, the powers that be are willing to turn a major part of the health care system into turmoil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Currently, law says that medical care needs to be given if there is a serious potentially life-threatening situation. Payment questions are supposed to come later.
That means that uninsured wait until whatever ails them does become serious.
If the country doesn't want compulsory basic insurance, then I strongly believe that doctors + hospitals are justified in having the law changed to no treatment until paid in advance or proof of sufficient insurance is given. Of course,that may be painful for the insured where the insurance company "forgot" that insurance was in effect. Therefore, I am still in favor of compulsory basic insurance. No transplants, or other fancy stuff.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interestingly, there were some studies showing that even people with MCaid or other similar insurances were no more likely to get preventative help or see a doc, instead of the emergency room, than similarly situated people w/o Mcaid. There are other studies suggesting the same thing even with regular insurance, although at lower levels. WHile access to insurance has an impact it is but one of many reasons why people do (or do not) go to the doc. Time (lost in the waiting room, or having to take time off work because the doc is available only during regular business hours), travel (especially among lower classes that might have to take a number of buses instead of just piling into the car), their perception of the usefulness of medicine all play at least as big a part in access as the financial aspects.

That really is the crunch factor. I think if society could come to a consensus on what constitutes basic care, we could have a usable plan tomorrow. But there isn't. I defer to my personal HC guru, Uwe Reinhardt from Princeton. ""No nation would be so dumb as to say that we all want to go one point, we just don't know how to get there. What we are finding is some want to go to San Diego, some to Seattle. We are ashamed to admit this so we pretend we all want to go to San Francisco."
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If it's unconstitutional to force individuals to buy health insurance, how is it constitutional to force hospitals to give free care to the uninsured, in turn raising the cost for everyone else? Is the real cost of the latter overstated?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
so wrote:

Because hospitals are stupid.
If they didn't want to treat the poor, just have establish the policy that every indigent who enters the emergency room participate in meningitis screening, complete with lumbar puncture.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, they aren't stupid, they are caught up in regulatory hell. They can't deny service if they in any way accept any Federal Money for any service. Then again, they can't exactly refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid so they are caught in the middle. Once they accept payment of any kind they are then subject to ALL of the rules and regulations of the Federal and/or State regulatory agencies and part of those regulations have a direct say over who they treat and how they must treat.

Oh if it were just so easy but the government would shut them down overnight.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I really think it is in the Hippocratic oath. Nothing to do with Federal monies.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maybe the first but definitely the second. The law on emergency care was written into the Medicare Act and said if you take any Fed money, you have to abide by the rules.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.