Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
AKDOG
Mountain climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 07:46pm PT
|
The insurance companies are following CMS guidelines and no longer paying for nosocomial infections and as a patient you don’t have to pay either, the hospital has too eat it. This policy is in place to try to force hospitals to improve infection control (forcing doctors, nurses, and staff to wash their hands etc and disinfect equipment between patients). Same goes for any injury you get while in the hospital.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 07:57pm PT
|
If you want federally controlled healthcare, where is that money coming from?
Everyone puts a dollar into the bucket, everyone takes a dollar out. That is assuming of course that everyone is paying taxes. hint - go to an emergency room in southern california.
The money HAS to come from somewhere. 65% percent of your paycheck going to federal taxes is not "uh, well, at least I get free healthcare."
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 08:04pm PT
|
LEB, think it through.
They are competing. They pay costs. They charge enough to pay those costs plus a profit - except for mutuals. They even have enough weight to dictate prices to some extent.
So you buy, or don't. Maybe health insurance itself is driving up the cost. How much of your staff is devoted to claims? How many of those claims are for unnecessary visits? Johnny had a sniffle, just started today...
How about malpractice insurance? Do you think that has driven up the cost of providing service?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 08:07pm PT
|
GDavis, You could start finding the money by taking the insurance agencies out of the picture. They average 12 to 25 percent profits, plus what they cost to manage the programs. Medicare's management cost is 3 percent.
Take what your employer pays, which by the way means what YOU pay since it is part of your pay package, plus the savings from taking the insurance companies out of the picture. This would be enough to cover everyone, since as has been said, we all already pay for those without care through higher costs.
This way everyone is covered.
..............
TIG, you can't really believe that markets are perfect. I wonder if Tom had the time to shop for a lower price while he was having a heart attack.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 10:56pm PT
|
"GDavis, You could start finding the money by taking the insurance agencies out of the picture. "
My brother works for a Benefits company. They have ~120 employees and cover a couple hundred thousand peoples claims, including SAIC. The margin is not large. It is one of the most competitive and hi-tech markets I have seen.
Take than also how many people (like me for instance) who don't have insurance. How many illegal immigrants or people whose employer doesn't offer insurance. The pot that we would be grabbing out of is small.
If the government controls the salary of doctors, they will do the same thing that they do with policemen, firefighters and teachers. We will see now the 4 most important jobs in the world budgeted to near poverty levels.
Obama wants to have the government control all this spending... leaving no room for growth.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 10:57pm PT
|
i dont have insurance because i'm a sport climber.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 10:57pm PT
|
and i have two boyfriends.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2008 - 11:05pm PT
|
"If the government controls the salary of doctors, they will do the same thing that they do with policemen, firefighters and teachers. We will see now the 4 most important jobs in the world budgeted to near poverty levels."
There is no need to control the salary of doctors. Costs are driven by supply and demand, so just increase the supply and reduce the demand the and salaries will take care of themselves.
There are too few medical schools, so increase the number of schools. That will increase the supply of doctors.
Second, make a much greater use of independent nurse practitioners. For most of the things you currently have to see a doctor for, you would get what you need seeing a nurse practitioner. More nurse practitioners would increase access to health care while decreasing the demand for doctors.
|
|
pro_alien
Sport climber
Zurich, Switzerland
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 09:12am PT
|
How about another million dollar idea:
If the overhead of dealing with health insurance is that bad, how about charging reasonable prices to those who pay cash on the barrel, instead of forcing them to go the insurance route through ridiculous list rates ?
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 09:27am PT
|
Rox - The Mommy in the waiting room is too funny. That would make a great "New Yorker" cartoon!
Edit: To appease Lois's serious query to the joke statement - You could have an RN take a gander at the patients and send em off to mommy or the doc.....
|
|
screelover
Mountain climber
Canuckistan
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 09:52am PT
|
Re: Mommy in the waiting room
A few weeks ago I heard a radio interview (local CBC station) with a couple of triage nurses about how they decide who gets seen and when.
It's all based on who has the greatest need or urgency.
These two gals were great. Super confident, tough and at the same time very compassionate.
The whole issue being investigated by the interviewer was "queue jumping” – getting treatment based on something other than proper triage procedures.
The two nurses made it clear that this did not happen on their watch. Ever.
The interviewer asked what if some major donor to the hospital came in with a minor condition, would he/she get “special treatment”. The two nurses just laughed. Not a chance. Nada.
Then they said if the Prime Minister showed up, he’d wait his turn. If he was in bad shape, he’d get treatment immediately. If he had a sore throat, he’d wait just like everyone else.
No exceptions.
That's what makes the system work. One tier. No special treatment. Everyone gets what they need. And good people keep the wheels on the tracks.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 12:11pm PT
|
VERY broken, but you resist the system changes that have been suggested.
Lois - If it were all up to YOU, what would you suggest to fix the health care system in the US? Pretend you have been hired to act as the top consultant by whomever is our next president. They want an outline....What would it look like?
|
|
screelover
Mountain climber
Canuckistan
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 12:46pm PT
|
Lois,
Do you, or anyone else, have any sense of what percentage of a doctor's or hospital's operating costs, and ultimately the patient's costs, are simply to cover insurance?
Just curious as to how much cost this loads onto things.
|
|
screelover
Mountain climber
Canuckistan
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 01:00pm PT
|
Lois,
OK.
So I'm wondering, if you had a system where tort reform got rid of the nonsense malpractice claims, and limited awards to actual damage, overall costs would come down a bunch. Right?
Then if you switched to a single-payer system, instead of having a zillion different companies, your admin costs should also drop.
Basically, that's the Canadian system in a nutshell.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 01:07pm PT
|
"Looks like the insurance companies want to get rid of all those sick people. Its a better deal if you only insure people who are 100% healthy and never had ANY problems."
Exactly. They are in business to make money, not to help people. They make money by maximizing premiums and minimizing payouts.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 01:15pm PT
|
Dropping people for undisclosed conditions isn't anything new. Life and health insurance companies have been doing that for a long time.
Insurance companies set costs according to known risk. If you don't disclose something, then those costs are wrong, and the insurance company may end up eating the difference. They will then pass that loss on to other individuals in terms of higher premiums. Thus making a few more people unable to afford insurance :-(.
Of course, maybe the reason you didn't disclose in the first place is because you were pretty sure you'd be declined if you did.
Not a good situation no matter how you look at it. Fixes have been tried in ways to remove pre-existing conditions limitations, but none of them are comprehensive enough.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 01:15pm PT
|
Browse this:
And other stuff on the same site.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 02:00pm PT
|
You know what I would do to "fix" the health care thing?
I would make it mandatory that employers who offer health insurance to give their workers the option of having the employer-paid premium amount paid to them in money instead of insurance. (non-friggin' taxable, too, dammit!)
And then I would tell everyone - DROP YOUR INSURANCE!
FORCE change.
Of course, it wouldn't work. Too many people too scared of the big bad "Your credit will be ruined!!!!!" threat.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 02:11pm PT
|
LOL.
That is, when you become governor of all 50 states, right?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2008 - 02:14pm PT
|
" The waits to see specialists are very long so I deal with a lot of the stuff anyway, whether I like it or not. "
Ironic that the very thing you are afraid of with a single payer system is the thing that is happening with the system we have now.
I know I know, you will say that you are afraid that it will get worse, but will it really. It isn't in Canada.
The waits are no worse then here, except for the really new stuff. Its just that everyone gets treated and it costs less then here.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!