Question..."guess" actually.

[Ross Dolan]

I've noticed that it is almost impossible to get an unaffiliated doctor these days. Almost all belong to medical associations...as do most hospitals. All of these "groups" are for-profit.

So here is the predicate for my question...asking each of you for your best guess:

Since these groups are formed to maximize profits for the hospital and physician members...do you guess that in situations where it would be more profitable to require extended testing or repeat doctor visits before any procedure be performed (regardless of whether those visits or tests are absolutely needed)...will the association encourage the more profitable route...or will the association encourage the less profitable alternative? Especially if the patient is on Medicare or Medicaid.

No need to even explain your guesses, but if you feel comfortable doing so, give some reasons for your guess.

 

[Yakuda]

I've noticed that it is almost impossible to get an unaffiliated doctor these days. Almost all belong to medical associations...as do most hospitals. All of these "groups" are for-profit.

So here is the predicate for my question...asking each of you for your best guess:

Since these groups are formed to maximize profits for the hospital and physician members...do you guess that in situations where it would be more profitable to require extended testing or repeat doctor visits before any procedure be performed (regardless of whether those visits or tests are absolutely needed)...will the association encourage the more profitable route...or will the association encourage the less profitable alternative? Especially if the patient is on Medicare or Medicaid.

No need to even explain your guesses, but if you feel comfortable doing so, give some reasons for your guess.

Insurance is the worse things that has happened to medical care. When you go to the doctor the insurance company is the customer not the patient. The doctor or hospital get paid by the insurance company not the patient The patient in turn doesnt care about the cost of treatment they only care about how much they have to pay for the insurance. Prices are inflated as insurance companies decide how much they will pay not the patient.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Nobody???

This question impacts on one of the huge disgraces of our system...the fact that we pay so much more for our healthcare than damn near every other nation in the world...and yet, we do not have health results that are as favorable.

Somebody???

 

[Moosakofsky]

I've noticed that it is almost impossible to get an unaffiliated doctor these days. Almost all belong to medical associations...as do most hospitals.

The AMA is the only one I know of.

All of these "groups" are for-profit.

The AMA has nothing to do with making a profit.

So here is the predicate for my question...asking each of you for your best guess:

Since these groups are formed to maximize profits for the hospital and physician members..

You obviously don’t have a clue what the AMA does.

.do you guess that in situations where it would be more profitable to require extended testing or repeat doctor visits before any procedure be performed (regardless of whether those visits or tests are absolutely needed)..

That’s up to the individual doctor.

.will the association encourage the more profitable route...or will the association encourage the less profitable alternative?

The AMA doesn’t encourage or discourage anything in regards to patient care other than what’s published in JAMA, a peer reviewed journal.

Especially if the patient is on Medicare or Medicaid.

That’s up to the individual doctor.

No need to even explain your guesses, but if you feel comfortable doing so, give some reasons for your guess.

Not a guess. My guess is that you’re uninformed.

 

[Althea]

I've noticed that it is almost impossible to get an unaffiliated doctor these days. Almost all belong to medical associations...as do most hospitals. All of these "groups" are for-profit.

So here is the predicate for my question...asking each of you for your best guess:

Since these groups are formed to maximize profits for the hospital and physician members...do you guess that in situations where it would be more profitable to require extended testing or repeat doctor visits before any procedure be performed (regardless of whether those visits or tests are absolutely needed)...will the association encourage the more profitable route...or will the association encourage the less profitable alternative? Especially if the patient is on Medicare or Medicaid.

No need to even explain your guesses, but if you feel comfortable doing so, give some reasons for your guess.

I've built quite a few medical offices. One doctor had an entire staff just for billing/insurance issues. It's extremely common for doctors to sell their practices to large conglomerates and then work for them. Probably much more cost effective if they don't have to do their own billing.

Re. unnecessary tests, etc...most times the insurer is the one who rejects them. Often to the detriment of the patient.

 

[Althea]

Nobody???

This question impacts on one of the huge disgraces of our system...the fact that we pay so much more for our healthcare than damn near every other nation in the world...and yet, we do not have health results that are as favorable.

Somebody???

Kind of amusing that the naysayers cite long waits for care in other countries. If you've ever tried to get an appointment for a preventive screening, it typically takes several months. First it's 2 months for the meet and greet with the doctor, and then another 2 to 3 months for the procedure.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Kind of amusing that the naysayers cite long waits for care in other countries. If you've ever tried to get an appointment for a preventive screening, it typically takes several months. First it's 2 months for the meet and greet with the doctor, and then another 2 to 3 months for the procedure.

The arguments against the way other developed countries handle healthcare get weaker and weaker. We have got to wake up. I hope it happens soon, but I am not supposing that it will.

 

[Althea]

The arguments against the way other developed countries handle healthcare get weaker and weaker. We have got to wake up. I hope it happens soon, but I am not supposing that it will.

Corporations own our govt.. Big Pharma will never allow legislators to change anything, especially given that they all invest in our for profit system.
I'm not really sure how much would be saved by MFA, as taxes would be necessary to fund it. The good thing is that none of the money goes to investors. In other nations, doctors aren't wealthy the way they are in this nation.

 

[Althea]

The arguments against the way other developed countries handle healthcare get weaker and weaker. We have got to wake up. I hope it happens soon, but I am not supposing that it will.

We have a regime that openly states 'we cannot afford Medicare/Medicaid, or child care in the nation.

But we have more than one billion/day for his wars, and countless billions for his vanity projects.

 

[Lionfish]

Kind of amusing that the naysayers cite long waits for care in other countries. If you've ever tried to get an appointment for a preventive screening, it typically takes several months. First it's 2 months for the meet and greet with the doctor, and then another 2 to 3 months for the procedure.

You have the wrong doctors.

 

[Ross Dolan]

We have a regime that openly states 'we cannot afford Medicare/Medicaid, or child care in the nation.

But we have more than one billion/day for his wars, and countless billions for his vanity projects.

We can afford a national healthcare system...and we have to insist that one be instituted. In fact, we CANNOT afford not to have a national healthcare system. The "system" now in place has got to be replaced by something that insures EVERYONE has access to all the healthcare needed.

I, personally, favor government funded medical education with a reasonable period of paid work as a doctor in clinics that provide medical care similar to the kinds used by other developed nations. Yeah, there are negatives to those systems, but the negatives in our present system is appalling in a nation as wealthy as ours.

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

We can afford a national healthcare system...and we have to insist that one be instituted. In fact, we CANNOT afford not to have a national healthcare system. The "system" now in place has got to be replaced by something that insures EVERYONE has access to all the healthcare needed.

I, personally, favor government funded medical education with a reasonable period of paid work as a doctor in clinics that provide medical care similar to the kinds used by other developed nations. Yeah, there are negatives to those systems, but the negatives in our present system is appalling in a nation as wealthy as ours.

Until we as a populace stop valuing longevity at all costs we will always be short on money to pay for everyone's care. You simply can't spend this much on the end game and balance the books.

We mock Canada but in reality they seem to understand and accept the human life cycle in a healthier way. Which of course can be abused.

Faith is the answer but it's in increasingly short supply. Godless people fear death the most.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Until we as a populace stop valuing longevity at all costs we will always be short on money to pay for everyone's care. You simply can't spend this much on the end game and balance the books.

We mock Canada but in reality they seem to understand and accept the human life cycle in a healthier way. Which of course can be abused.

Faith is the answer but it's in increasingly short supply. Godless people fear death the most.

I do not much care if we start a "Logan's Run" scenario to end life after a certain age. Right now our healthcare is an abomination...an insult to the nation we are and an insult to human intelligence.

I will be 90 years old in a bit over 2 months...and have been in relatively good health. If people my age bother you, campaign for the termination of life after a particular age. Frankly, if we cannot solve the problem at hand here in a more reasonable manner, perhaps we ought make that age limit...21 to 25.

As for your last remark, I think you are all wet on that. The people who seem to fear death the most are the people sucking up to gods. THEY are the one's who seem to want eternal life. I certainly do not.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I've noticed that it is almost impossible to get an unaffiliated doctor these days. Almost all belong to medical associations...as do most hospitals. All of these "groups" are for-profit.

So here is the predicate for my question...asking each of you for your best guess:

Since these groups are formed to maximize profits for the hospital and physician members...do you guess that in situations where it would be more profitable to require extended testing or repeat doctor visits before any procedure be performed (regardless of whether those visits or tests are absolutely needed)...will the association encourage the more profitable route...or will the association encourage the less profitable alternative? Especially if the patient is on Medicare or Medicaid.

No need to even explain your guesses, but if you feel comfortable doing so, give some reasons for your guess.

Its Rigged.

At your age have you still not learned?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I've noticed that it is almost impossible to get an unaffiliated doctor these days. Almost all belong to medical associations...as do most hospitals. All of these "groups" are for-profit.

So here is the predicate for my question...asking each of you for your best guess:

Since these groups are formed to maximize profits for the hospital and physician members...do you guess that in situations where it would be more profitable to require extended testing or repeat doctor visits before any procedure be performed (regardless of whether those visits or tests are absolutely needed)...will the association encourage the more profitable route...or will the association encourage the less profitable alternative? Especially if the patient is on Medicare or Medicaid.

No need to even explain your guesses, but if you feel comfortable doing so, give some reasons for your guess.

My last three working years were spent in managed care in the workers' comp realm. It's not much different than the same thing for non-WC patients. When a person presents with an injury or condition, the physician typically can order some simple diagnostics, therapy, medication. More extensive diagnostics/treatments usually require a pre-cert from the insurance company. This is not the provider's doing but is mandated by the insurance companies. As you probably know, insurers want to maximize their own profits and most have contracted with providers how much they will pay for this test and that procedure. Hospitals and physician practices of course want to maximize THEIR profits, so their pre-cert dept. nurses (like I was) are empowered to authorize many requests but cannot deny coverage. That has to be done with a "peer review" physician who often will speak to the requesting provider.

I know what you mean about modern U.S. healthcare. It's extremely complex. We have one small independent practice here that doesn't take insurance. Instead you pay an annual fee to be one of their clients, and a small out-of-pocket fee for routine care like wellness visits, vaccines, PAP tests, etc. Probably a good deal for young, healthy people with healthy children.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I've built quite a few medical offices. One doctor had an entire staff just for billing/insurance issues. It's extremely common for doctors to sell their practices to large conglomerates and then work for them. Probably much more cost effective if they don't have to do their own billing.

Re. unnecessary tests, etc...most times the insurer is the one who rejects them. Often to the detriment of the patient.

That's why most docs belong to practices that share office/clerical tasks like billing and pre-certs.

You are correct about denial of services by insurance companies. My youngest has MS and has to periodically switched medications because they quit working or cause too many side effects. Each time, her neurologist has to appeal to her insurance company to cover the new med. She's currently in that process once again. You're right. It's detrimental to the patient. Each day she delays starting the new med, more damage is occurring to her nervous system.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Kind of amusing that the naysayers cite long waits for care in other countries. If you've ever tried to get an appointment for a preventive screening, it typically takes several months. First it's 2 months for the meet and greet with the doctor, and then another 2 to 3 months for the procedure.

I've noticed exactly the same thing. Last year Mr. Owl lost a crown on one of his molars. He saved it and just needed it stuck back on. But every dentist office he called either wasn't accepting new patients, or had a wait of several weeks. He finally called that chain, Delta Dentist, and was able to get in within a week. It took all of five mins. to restore the crown.

In 2023 when I had surgery (lumpectomy) for breast cancer, it took two weeks for the biopsy to come back, and two MONTHS to see an oncologist.