Where are you getting this number and how does the info relate to health care??? I haven't heard this.Originally Posted by saltydawg
|
|
|
|
|
Where are you getting this number and how does the info relate to health care??? I haven't heard this.
Oh really. I find that a really stupid comment in so many areas. And no I won't point them out to you.
No one brings it up because it isnt the #1 reason. It isnt even the #14 reason.
Are you kidding????? 30 million uninsured, untaxed, nonpaying illegals aren't even in your top 10? How heavily inebriated are you at this very moment?
That's just stupid DB2-3. It's a huge reason cost are so high. But your party wants all of those illegal votes at some point (not to mention the rest of the mexican/spanish vote already legal) so bad they are willing to flush the country down the toilet.
Did you donate to BB&B and our charities yet?
__________________
RD, Do you think it is more likely that the managed care model increased fees rather than insurance (fee for service) being the cause? PPO/HMO discounting hit the docs in the pocket and the subscriber subsidy isn't enough to balance the discount. My theory is fee discounting resulted in fee inflation so the provider still makes their money. This is in addition to the mutiple other reasons discussed as to why costs have been driven up. I'm only commenting in regards to managed care vs fee for service. A side effect of MC is increased usage. People are more likely to use services with a $15 co-pay than satisfying a deductible plus 20% like we used to do. Higher usage = higher premiums.
Dems/Libs not voting in tort reform due to their trial lawyer $$ base. Threat of huge $$ lawsuits by lawyers cost Dr's mega $$ for mega $$ Insurance policies. Drug companies, also worried about getting sued by trial lawyers, drive up their cost as well.
And overall GREED in the healthcare world. And GREED by the proposed OBAMACARE and DEM Gov. world wanting Federal control of those $$$$'s.
That just might be THE KEY to lowering the costs.
I do have a question as to the "game" that doctors and insurance play as well.
When I get statements, I'll see that the doctor charged, for example $918 for minor foot procedure (ingrown toenail). Then you see a statement later that said that insurance only paid the doctor $236 and the rest was "disregarded". What is to gain with this game, and why is there such a LARGE GAP in the figures that they try and charge vs what the doctor actually gets paid??
Exactly my point. It's a game. It used to be simple fee for service. Doctor charged a fee, patient paid the first say $250 of charges of each year and then the insurance company paid 80% thereafter (basically). 20 years ago managed care amounted to Kaiser Permanante HMO and small PPO networks and that was about it. Then came the threat of Hillarycare and managed care took on a sense of urgency to stall socialized medicine. Providers in PPO's discount their fees a little and gain patients. HMO's cut the costs by leaning on the primary care docs for bigger discounts in exchange for a small monthly payment per assigned patient plus the discounted fee for service provided as needed. The pc's were to manage the patient rather than the patient making appointments for whatever they thought ailed them. The pc would refer if necessary theoretically to eliminate unneccessary treatments by the expensive specialists. Instead, the pc's refer out as they would have anyway, now there's a huge insurance bureaucracy in the middle to determine what should or shouldn't be done and the providers are billing higher amounts to make up what they aren't getting because of the discount. It's crap and today's managed care is not as it was intended. It has become a bastardized version to keep patients happy with all of their choices and control and therefore the cost has gone up accordingly. Many providers charge a much lower rate if you are a cash customer.
Tort reform is necessary and not just to drop the jury awards. There is a lot of waste in procedures and tests ordered for butt covering purposes. Those costs are absorbed by the insurance companies adding to the loss projections and therefore higher premiums. It's an ugly mess. But replacing it with Obamacare will make it worse. We need an overhaul, not an obliteration.
The USA spends about 16% of its GNP on health care whereas all other industrialized countries spend about 8%. The health of Americans is no better than the health of people who live in other industrialized countries. Hence, we are spending about 8% of our GNP for no benefit.
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Damdest logic I've ever seen.
I'm sure you would disagree, but since you are usually the first to say, "If you don't like America, move!"...
Using your logic, our quality of life is worth at least 8%.:icon_wink:
What quality of life? :icon_wink:Damdest logic I've ever seen.
I'm sure you would disagree, but since you are usually the first to say, "If you don't like America, move!"...
Using your logic, our quality of life is worth at least 8%.:icon_wink:
"All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson
Guiss has posted a lot of facts. Obesity rate is very high in the US and I would surmise that causes a huge chunk of the difference.
Your rebuttal of pharmaceutical companies being international doesn't hold much water. Why are prescription drugs in the US MASSIVELY more expensive?
Patents. Americans spend the bulk of R&D costs then the Canadians get the drugs for pennies on the dollar. In America, you have to cover the cost of the FDA and then you get a patent to recover your R&D costs by charging lots of money for your innovative new product.
Instead of throwing around your 8% like it's the end-all be-all of stats, how about you tell us EXACTLY how much of this 8% will be fixed by Obamacare.
The CBO says practically none.
It's a simple question with a huge answer. Guiss and I already gave you several answers to your simple question.
And if this bill passes, this will get much, much worse...along with your quality of care.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
