Alternative to government healthcare plan

Watermark said:
HONEY, THEY'VE GOT GREAT DEALS ON CHEMO OVER AT ST. MARY'S!
Click to expand...

Tell me dear emo...

Do you know how much of that Chemo bill is going towards...

Malpractice insurance
Medical Tests
Admin expenses
Doctors fees
Equipment maintenance
Drugs
etc...

???

Do you know what a bill for the same Chemo treatment was last year? Can you compare the two and see where differences are occuring?
 
Superfreak said:
It means they are not going to force insurance companies to provide all of the current riders that they currently do. Instead, they will let individuals CHOOSE which riders they need.

If you think the riders are the only thing regulated in the insurance industry, then you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any mention of "riders." I'd love to debate this with you SF, but you can't just make things up as you go along.
 
Superfreak said:
Tell me dear emo...

Do you know how much of that Chemo bill is going towards...

Malpractice insurance
Medical Tests
Admin expenses
Doctors fees
Equipment maintenance
Drugs
etc...

???

Do you know what a bill for the same Chemo treatment was last year? Can you compare the two and see where differences are occuring?
Click to expand...


WM's comments have been pretty much spot on and your responses are fairly weak. Do you seriously think that a proposal to "make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost" includes, for Chemo treatments for example, a break down of what percentage of the cost of Chemo is attributable to malpractice insurance premiums and equipment maintenance? That's ridiculous.
 
Last week SF and I talked about caps on med mal claims cutting costs. In Texas they did this five years ago. Med mal insurance for doctors is down on average 30 percent. However, costs in Texas have risen during the same period. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, Medicare spending in Texas rose 24 percent in the three years after the state capped malpractice awards. In Dallas, it went up 27 percent during the same period, 2003 to 2006.”

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy has reported that Medicare spending in Texas increased by almost 25 percent in the three years following that state’s adoption of restrictive tort laws. In fact, a University of Alabama study, published in the December 2008 issue of Health Sciences Review, reviewed data from 27 states that already have laws restricting torts and found that such laws do not impact the practice of defensive medicine and have not resulted in cost savings for healthcare consumers. Another 2008 study, published in the MIT Quarterly Journal of Economics, addressed the myth of defensive medicine as it related to the practice of obstetrics. After reviewing the vital statistics of millions of births, the authors concluded that tort restriction does not reduce the cost associated with the practice of defensive medicine.

http://rijustice.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/learn-the-facts-on-tort-reform/
 
Dungheap said:
I didn't see any mention of "riders." I'd love to debate this with you SF, but you can't just make things up as you go along.
Click to expand...

" Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying."

Typically in an insurance contract you have the main body, which normally outlines all of the standard coverages of the contract. The riders cover the extras. Things we may not all need, but may want. What lobbyists did was get Congress to mandate certain riders be included in insurance contracts. Meaning everyone had to pay them. They became worked into the main body of the contract. What he is suggesting (and for the record I agree) is that we pull the old riders back out of the main body of the contract and let them be optional.

Let the consumers decide which riders they want to add on to basic care. That way we each pay for what we need rather than everyone paying premiums for services we don't need/want.
 
Socrtease said:
Last week SF and I talked about caps on med mal claims cutting costs. In Texas they did this five years ago. Med mal insurance for doctors is down on average 30 percent. However, costs in Texas have risen during the same period. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, Medicare spending in Texas rose 24 percent in the three years after the state capped malpractice awards. In Dallas, it went up 27 percent during the same period, 2003 to 2006.”

The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy has reported that Medicare spending in Texas increased by almost 25 percent in the three years following that state’s adoption of restrictive tort laws. In fact, a University of Alabama study, published in the December 2008 issue of Health Sciences Review, reviewed data from 27 states that already have laws restricting torts and found that such laws do not impact the practice of defensive medicine and have not resulted in cost savings for healthcare consumers. Another 2008 study, published in the MIT Quarterly Journal of Economics, addressed the myth of defensive medicine as it related to the practice of obstetrics. After reviewing the vital statistics of millions of births, the authors concluded that tort restriction does not reduce the cost associated with the practice of defensive medicine.

http://rijustice.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/learn-the-facts-on-tort-reform/
Click to expand...

Another reason we need to see the transparency in costs. What caused the increases? What were national increases relative to the Texas increases?

Did they see a corresponding decline in malpractice insurance rates in TX or not? If not, then the insurance industry must answer as to why this was.

By itself, I agree it will not have an effect on costs.
 
Dungheap said:
WM's comments have been pretty much spot on and your responses are fairly weak. Do you seriously think that a proposal to "make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost" includes, for Chemo treatments for example, a break down of what percentage of the cost of Chemo is attributable to malpractice insurance premiums and equipment maintenance? That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

what else do you think it could mean?

Waters responses have been all emo all the time. They are simply left wing talking points.
 
Superfreak said:
" Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying."

Typically in an insurance contract you have the main body, which normally outlines all of the standard coverages of the contract. The riders cover the extras. Things we may not all need, but may want. What lobbyists did was get Congress to mandate certain riders be included in insurance contracts. Meaning everyone had to pay them. They became worked into the main body of the contract. What he is suggesting (and for the record I agree) is that we pull the old riders back out of the main body of the contract and let them be optional.

Let the consumers decide which riders they want to add on to basic care. That way we each pay for what we need rather than everyone paying premiums for services we don't need/want.
Click to expand...

What healthcare services would you not need/want? Are you going to bet that you aren't going to get cancer in the future. and check that off to lower your premiums?

Any serious medical condition is something society has a responsibility to treat. To allow people to checkoff some things and get treated for them anyway would just allow them to game the system. Or do we just allow people who decided not to check off the "cancer" box to die?

I don't see how this would lower costs one bit for anybody but the insurance companies. Seriously, is this guy a lobbyist or something?
 
Superfreak said:
None. I have an HSA account with the $2500 deductible as well. Preventative care is covered 100% without using deductible. After preventative, everything comes out of my deductible until I hit the $2500. After that, I am covered 100% by the insurance.

The beauty of the HSA account is that I can put up to my deductible into it each year tax free. If I don't use it, it simply keeps growing for me. Because I invest the HSA account, I currently have about 7-8 years worth of deductibles sitting in there. It grows tax free provided the money is used for healthcare expenses.

The overall plan is far far cheaper than others for the point he raised. When people know they are going to be using their money FIRST... they tend to be more prudent with how it is spent.
Click to expand...

HSAs were established as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003. They were developed to replace the Medical Savings Account system.

It's a good system, which is why very few have heard about it. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
HSAs were established as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003. They were developed to replace the Medical Savings Account system.

It's a good system, which is why very few have heard about it. *shrug*
Click to expand...


For some folks it's a very good system but it is by no means a good system for everyone, particularly the folks with medical conditions that require frequent doctor visits and treatments.
 
Dungheap said:
For some folks it's a very good system but it is by no means a good system for everyone, particularly the folks with medical conditions that require frequent doctor visits and treatments.
Click to expand...
Why? After they spend the $2500 everything else is free.
 
Superfreak said:
what else do you think it could mean?

Waters responses have been all emo all the time. They are simply left wing talking points.
Click to expand...


I think it simply means that patients will be informed of what their treatment costs, not what the various components of that costs.

For example, office visit costs $125. Not office visit costs $125 including $5 for medical malpractice insurance premium, $5 for nursing staff, $4 for receptionist, $2.56 for paper supplies, $90 for doctor salary, $4 for fancy new stethoscopes, etc. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top