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
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
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.
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
I WISH the Saudi's would pump millions into our elections!
People get involved in politics for one of three reasons: Pride, Power, or
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?
Did Ted Kennedy kill it twice? I don't know about the above incident,
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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."
If it's unconstitutional to force individuals to buy health
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?
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.
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
Oh if it were just so easy but the government would shut them down
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.