Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Fly320s on August 30, 2012, 11:07:33 PM
-
That is what Romney has promised if he becomes POTUS.
What does he want to replace it with? Why replace it at all?
-
Therein lies the crux and fail of the GOP, when they pander to the voters by only offering slightly less liberal ideas to counter the ideas of the left.
McCain-care had many of the same attributes that ended up in Obamacare.....
-
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA, EVEN IF THE OTHER GUY IS THE SAME
-
There are a lot of great ideas out there regarding the reformation of health care. Most of them involve competition and allowing for insurance companies to write biz in all states. Some elements of the present law are not bad. If one wants to pay the premium, why should there be any age limit for family members to remain on a group policy is one example.
Why not a cafeteria concept of service? You pick what you want for routine stuff, and keep the concept of before tax medical accounts for deductibles etc. Then select what kind of catastrophic care you might want. Blend coverage with auto policy medical coverage. Citizen open oversight of a created catastrophic state fund paid for by a small tax everybody pays.
Have you ever seen a hospital or urgent care facility that wasn't a Taj Mahal building? Why is that necessary? Where do you suppose the money comes from for all the fancy buildings? Can not medicine be practiced efficiently in a steel post and frame building? Modern construction had taken quantum leaps in those types of buildings.
Why all the duplication of services in sectors of states? Maybe 3 DaVinci surgical suites in one location instead of 3 machines in 3 separate buildings? Like in many things, there is an economy of scale even in the healthcare business.
In other words, there is much that could be done to reform medical care that does not involve a complete takeover by the federal government. A lot of this stuff can be handled at the state level.
Granted, I'm no expert but if Americans want some sort of medical system, then try and work it out at the state level.
-
That is what Romney has promised if he becomes POTUS.
What does he want to replace it with? Why replace it at all?
hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts
-
Another important piece of national healthcare reforming is separating insurance from employer dependency.
-
hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts
States as the laboratory of democracy. The voters of MA wanted such a system, and are finding its warts. Perhaps a state might make it work, but I believe romney's point is that a FEDERAL system is too soon, too big, and inappropriate for our diverse nation. He has also flat out stated the warts of the MA system, and used them as why he wants to repeal/replace Obamacare.
-
States as the laboratory of democracy. The voters of MA wanted such a system, and are finding its warts. Perhaps a state might make it work, but I believe romney's point is that a FEDERAL system is too soon, too big, and inappropriate for our diverse nation. He has also flat out stated the warts of the MA system, and used them as why he wants to repeal/replace Obamacare.
This. I'm not a Mitt-fanboi, but De Selby your attack was like an MSNBC talking point.
-
First, dump Obama Care, and have ready a bill which recaptures some of the good stuff from within this plan. They can debate what the "good stuff" is, but there are a couple things I want: Medical Insurance by private companies, group policies for small business offered by the private insurance companies, a policy that captures those that get left behind due to financial ability, age, or pre-existing conditions, and major medicial/catastropic insurance for those "in between jobs or employers". Perscription reform which I don't really know what that means, but I do know it costs way too much for perscriptions and they are a lot less expensive in other countries. I assume that Americans are subsidizing the cost without even knowing it.
-
Another important piece of national healthcare reforming is separating insurance from employer dependency.
This. Throw in inter-state portability and tort reform, an incentive away from third part payment, reduced federally mandated coverage and you have a winner.
-
First, dump Obama Care, and have ready a bill which recaptures some of the good stuff from within this plan. They can debate what the "good stuff" is, but there are a couple things I want: Medical Insurance by private companies, group policies for small business offered by the private insurance companies, a policy that captures those that get left behind due to financial ability, age, or pre-existing conditions, and major medicial/catastropic insurance for those "in between jobs or employers". Perscription reform which I don't really know what that means, but I do know it costs way too much for perscriptions and they are a lot less expensive in other countries. I assume that Americans are subsidizing the cost without even knowing it.
Generally, when the government gets involved, we pay the price. Why should it be replaced at all? Why not have a bill ready that starts derregulating health care, hospitals, and the pharmacutical industry instead?
The answer to "more government" shouldn't be "slightly less more government".
-
First, dump Obama Care, and have ready a bill which recaptures some of the good stuff from within this plan. They can debate what the "good stuff" is, but there are a couple things I want: Medical Insurance by private companies, group policies for small business offered by the private insurance companies, a policy that captures those that get left behind due to financial ability, age, or pre-existing conditions, and major medicial/catastropic insurance for those "in between jobs or employers". Perscription reform which I don't really know what that means, but I do know it costs way too much for perscriptions and they are a lot less expensive in other countries. I assume that Americans are subsidizing the cost without even knowing it.
How do you propose that the pharmaceutical industry pay for R&D of new drugs?
I don't work for big pharma, and my only dog in the fight is either the tax hike that will follow if prices of prescriptions are set by government fiat, or the stall in creation of new drugs if We The Voters end up compelling them to simply take it in the behind on their bottom line.
It can take a decade or more to come out with something like Lipitor (a blood pressure, cholesterol and heart attack prevention drug). Scientists and doctors will be working on that product for years, in a laboratory somewhere, running chemical engineering software, animal tests, and controlled human tests. It costs tens of millions, per drug.
Then the drug company has 7 years of patent monopoly on that particular product, to make back all those millions and more to appease stockholders.
If there's no profit in medicine, stockholders will go to other industries.
If there's no investment in medicine from stockholders, there's no innovation and new tech.
I'd just as soon see a declaration that all drugs engineered from US based pharma labs MUST be paid for at appropriate market value, either by state-subsidized "free" medical programs (like the UK and Canada), or by the people in that country who directly consume the product. No fiat pricing of drugs abroad... otherwise export of that drug to that country is banned while it is still within its 7 year patent window.
That will lower prescription drug prices here in the US, since we currently pay the lion's share of R&D costs of a given drug.
-
The drug R&D timeline can be improved by rennovating the approval process. More streamlining, and better (more appropriate) risk assessment and tort reform. All drugs have risks, and the approval process is not currently appropriately weighted so while doctors weigh risks all the time (especially oncologists, where it's a matter of survivability with a treatment vs survivability due to treatment side effects), the approval process does not, so many drugs that -on the whole- save lives are rejected, due to extremely low probability lives lost due to side effects. Antibiotics and associated allergic reactions kill people, but they save innumerable more lives. However, new ones are harder to come by as the FDA is so risk averse and the lawsuits due to side effects so expensive that new drug development is hampered, and many lives are lost.
-
Obamacare isn't about health, it's about centralized government power. And that is why it must be repealed.
We know what the flaws in the GOP are, but priority one is to oust Obama. Let priority two be the reform of the Republican Party. We know turning this thing around will not be easy or quick.
-
hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts
Well, yeah ...unless you count that Romney's plan only covered 10% of the people and did not introduce 21 new imbedded taxes ... ... ... ... [popcorn]
-
I think after repealing Obamacare, making Medicare, Medicaid, and suchlike programs into vouchers/grants and yanking the entitlement aspect is a good second task. One step at a time....
-
Another important piece of national healthcare reforming is separating insurance from employer dependency.
Throw in inter-state portability and tort reform, an incentive away from third part payment, reduced federally mandated coverage and you have a winner.
These. Reforming the drug approval process to include tort reform. I'm sorry but if the FDA approves the drug then if you have a bad reaction, then you sue the FDA or you "Suck it up Princess". Drugs are not magic wands. The docs do the best they can with they have to work with. They try to find the best one with the minimum side effects for what you have. They explain the risks and rewards of various drugs and treatments. YOU make the decision of what YOU want to do. You are NOT required to follow their advice and are more than welcome to second and third opinions. Then once again YOU decide.
You want to sue someone, then sue yourself.
-
This. I'm not a Mitt-fanboi, but De Selby your attack was like an MSNBC talking point.
I thought DeSelby was an MSNBC talking point.
-
The drug R&D timeline can be improved by rennovating the approval process. ...
Make the patent run from the FDA approval date instead of the original patent application date ??? =|
The docs do the best they can with they have to work with. They try to find the best one with the minimum side effects for what you have. They explain the risks and rewards of various drugs and treatments. YOU make the decision of what YOU want to do. You are NOT required to follow their advice and are more than welcome to second and third opinions. Then once again YOU decide.
That's not always the case, or at least it often doesn't seem that way to the patient - "doctor's orders" you know ;/
If MDs want to be treated like fallible human beings, then they need to act that way for a change ;)
-
The problem with health care costs is being driven by the providers, doctors, and hospitals.
Their cost structures are ridiculously high, and there is no accountability.
Insurance companies now are just trying to use their size to negotiate discount rates for services.
Neighbor's son just had back surgery last week.
His surgery was to fix screws that were installed incorrectly during the last surgery.
The surgery should be no charge, as it was not done correctly the first time, but he will be charged the full ride.
This is bullshit, and is devoid of accountability.
He also is fighting a nasty infection that he got in the hospital.
He is also being charged for these costs, which is bullshit, as he did nothing wrong.
This is also devoid of accountability for the hospital.
In both these incidents, there would be no charge if is was a car going back to the shop who did the original work.
My belief is that is we can correct these kind if problems, force accountability to doctors and hospitals, make them fix their screw-ups for free, that the cost of health care would drop dramatically, and employers and people would be able to afford that was reasonable priced.
ETA - Bottom line is to fix the problem on the front end, not the back end.
-
There are several factors that drive health care costs. One is the technology, which is far more effective than that of just a few years ago, but also expensive. In Canada, the wait for an MRI can be as long as six months. Here, every hospital has at least one MRI machine, and I've been to MRI clinics in strip malls that have two or more. I've had MRI's the same day the doctor ordered them. And those machines cost anywhere from one to ten million.
Pharmacological treatments are available now for things that used to require surgery. Those medications cost a lot of money, and we're paying the difference in price between the real cost and what other countries are paying.
Another factor is the uninsured. We pay for their health care when they can't afford it. The doctors and hospitals amortize those costs and pass them on to the rest of us.
I won't argue that there's waste and other problems, but I think the lion's share of the high cost are the above.
-
Well, yeah ...unless you count that Romney's plan only covered 10% of the people and did not introduce 21 new imbedded taxes ... ... ... ... [popcorn]
[/quote
What makes you think obamacare will cover more than 10 percent, and that romneycare's taxes were any lower?
I didn't realize this board liked state health care as long as it was carried out by states.
Anything against Obama I guess, even if the alternative is exactly the same.
-
hilarious, considering that Obama care is basically a national copy of the system he built in Massachusetts
If only there was some document limiting the authority of the Federal Government.
-
DS most of us are opposed to state run health care but the difference being the country was set with powers granted to the states that were not granted to the federal government.
States rights and all that.
-
If only there was some document limiting the authority of the Federal Government.
You, sir, owe me a keyboard.
-
I do find it a pretty good argument that Romney is the worst R to pick to lead this fight against Obamacare.
To me, the best counter points are
1 - State does not equal federal (as already mentioned by others)
&
2 - Mass authorized this plan WHILE balancing the state budget. The Fed can't seem to balance budget on its major entitlements.
-
What makes you think obamacare will cover more than 10 percent, and that romneycare's taxes were any lower?
I didn't realize this board liked state health care as long as it was carried out by states.
Anything against Obama I guess, even if the alternative is exactly the same.
The FACTS make me think Obamacare will cover everyone, because it does, the FACTS tell me Obamacare has @21 new taxes in it while "Romneycare" doesn't.
I don't speak for the board but atleast what Romney did was confined to the state.
:facepalm: The alternative" is NOT "exactly the same." Do I have to make the same post all over again to drive that point home? :mad: :mad:
Oh and ONE MORE THING. Please use the quote function properly. Trying to extract what I said from your quote is too much like pulling weeds for me. :police: :angel:
-
We need to repeal Obama Care. Period. If it is not repealed, it needs to be dramatically changed to be more private industry oriented with less government control. I don't want the government in my health care business. It is bad enough as it is now. But the government is in position that can affect positive change.
Obama won the health care debate. People say repeal it, but they still want some government intervention (not control).
-
The FACTS make me think Obamacare will cover everyone, because it does, the FACTS tell me Obamacare has @21 new taxes in it while "Romneycare" doesn't.
I don't speak for the board but atleast what Romney did was confined to the state.
:facepalm: The alternative" is NOT "exactly the same." Do I have to make the same post all over again to drive that point home? :mad: :mad:
Oh and ONE MORE THING. Please use the quote function properly. Trying to extract what I said from your quote is too much like pulling weeds for me. :police: :angel:
Only if you consider that "Everyone" doesn't include about 26 million people. (Granted this includes about 11 million Illegals, so figure 15 million Americans not covered by Obamacare).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47873215/Millions_Still_Go_Uninsured_If_Obamacare_Survives
-
Only if you consider that "Everyone" doesn't include about 26 million people. (Granted this includes about 11 million Illegals, so figure 15 million Americans not covered by Obamacare).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47873215/Millions_Still_Go_Uninsured_If_Obamacare_Survives
And how long do you figure they will remain not covered by ObamaCare? My guess is not long at all.
-
And how long do you figure they will remain not covered by ObamaCare? My guess is not long at all.
Very long is my guess - the big mistake many are making in evaluating Obamamcare is believing that it's universal healthcare or at least an attempt at it.
It is no such thing.
-
Again, you are wrong, DS. ObamaCare is a participatory system that is intended to make health insurance available to everyone in one form or another. At some point illegals will be added to the system.
-
Again, you are wrong, DS. ObamaCare is a participatory system that is intended to make health insurance available to everyone in one form or another. At some point illegals will be added to the system.
They basically already are. They just aren't paying for it.
-
Again, you are wrong, DS. ObamaCare is a participatory system that is intended to make health insurance available to everyone in one form or another. At some point illegals will be added to the system.
They pretty much have to be given the following paraphrased statements
Liberals: "uninsured people make healthcare more expensive" (due to ER visits, no preventative care, etc)
Liberals: "this plan doesn't cover illegal aliens"
Me: "aren't illegal aliens the bulk of the uninsured that NEED health-care (I.e. not those who voluntarily chose not to have it, after all, isn't Medicaid supposed to help citizens who can't afford it?), and won't they still operate in the same fashion? If so, how does this reduce costs?"
Liberals: ...
The WHOLE point of Medicaid was to help the poor. So the uninsured argument is a red herring.
-
Question: Would Romney have pushed for Romneycare if the Massachusetts political system hadn't been pushing for a massive state-run health care system in the first place? And was Romneycare a better alternative to what the Mass Dems were pushing for? And, would Romney push for national Romneycare if his political party eas against it?
-
Only if you consider that "Everyone" doesn't include about 26 million people. (Granted this includes about 11 million Illegals, so figure 15 million Americans not covered by Obamacare).
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47873215/Millions_Still_Go_Uninsured_If_Obamacare_Survives
That distinction--legal and illegal--is one that is becoming increasingly meaningless in America, as you know. The legacy American population, with its annoying values based on liberty, is being swapped out, by design. That began in 1965, and it has been gaining momentum ever since. To those who believe there is racism in such a conclusion, you are right, but the racism is coming from the Left. This is a government that cares about victim classes, not the American people as whole and especially not about the people who built America and still pay the freight. At some point, maybe, enough people will see beyond the rhetoric--in both parties--and wake up to what has to be done.
Obamacare is about centralized government control of not only a big chunk of the economy but of our individual lives and fates. That is the issue here: the seizing of individual sovereignty. Beyond that, Obamacare is about the transfer of not just wealth but health. Obama has made clear that his priority is not delivering on promises to the people who paid into the system for years but to people who never paid in at all but who somehow "deserve" not only free health care but a complete re-vamping of everyone else's health care program. This is not just madness, it is effrontery and tyranny.
-
The problem with health care costs is being driven by the providers, doctors, and hospitals.
Their cost structures are ridiculously high, and there is no accountability.
Insurance companies now are just trying to use their size to negotiate discount rates for services.
Neighbor's son just had back surgery last week.
His surgery was to fix screws that were installed incorrectly during the last surgery.
The surgery should be no charge, as it was not done correctly the first time, but he will be charged the full ride.
This is bullshit, and is devoid of accountability.
He also is fighting a nasty infection that he got in the hospital.
He is also being charged for these costs, which is bullshit, as he did nothing wrong.
This is also devoid of accountability for the hospital.
In both these incidents, there would be no charge if is was a car going back to the shop who did the original work.
My belief is that is we can correct these kind if problems, force accountability to doctors and hospitals, make them fix their screw-ups for free, that the cost of health care would drop dramatically, and employers and people would be able to afford that was reasonable priced.
ETA - Bottom line is to fix the problem on the front end, not the back end.
The human body is not an automobile. It is a heckuva lot more complex. Producing them and maintaining them is not an assembly-line process, but a job shop. The auto:human analogy does not pass the laugh test.
Now, medical care can be improved in ways that auto maint can be improved: if we remove gov't interference and inject market forces. But, the different services will have different means of becoming more efficient.
-
1. Reduced third party payment to encourage market forces
2. Reduced government mandated coverage levels to allow appropriate economic selection
3. Interstate portability
4. Individual tax deduction comparable to employer deduction for health insurance
5. 3 and 4 combined enable individuals to group together to enhance market forces (actually small business insurance co-op's already do this, and are quite effective, but lack 3 and 4)
6. Tort reform through loser pays and punitive damage limits
7. Enhanced risk assessment in pharmaceutical development
8. International pharma agreements for IP reinforcement
9. Eliminate defacto AMA "quotas" to increase supply in boards, residencies, etc.
10. Game-theory incentive reward programs for financial encouragement of healthier behavior (ie a medical version of allstate's no-claim reward program)
There you go, the top 5 would make a huge difference in cost and availability, and the last 5 woud cement the deal.
-
The human body is not an automobile. It is a heckuva lot more complex. Producing them and maintaining them is not an assembly-line process, but a job shop. The auto:human analogy does not pass the laugh test.
Now, medical care can be improved in ways that auto maint can be improved: if we remove gov't interference and inject market forces. But, the different services will have different means of becoming more efficient.
Medical care is the one service that you generally don't have an option to "shop around" or even make your own decision about which services you will purchase and which you will forego. Once you present yourself, the MD tells you what you will buy but almost never tells you what it will cost until you receive the bill :mad:
-
Medical care is the one service that you generally don't have an option to "shop around" or even make your own decision about which services you will purchase and which you will forego. Once you present yourself, the MD tells you what you will buy but almost never tells you what it will cost until you receive the bill :mad:
And therein lies the problem. People used to get second opinions, ask doctors to explain things better, etc. now, they just do as they are told, and people wonder why it gets more expensive--limited supply, increasing demand, go figure,
-
Another factor is the uninsured. We pay for their health care when they can't afford it. The doctors and hospitals amortize those costs and pass them on to the rest of us.
I think a better way of putting it would be the rest pay for those who welch on their bill. I racked up several thousand dollars in hospital bills while uninsured and I paid them off, it took several years of monthly payments, but pay them I did.
-
Medical care is the one service that you generally don't have an option to "shop around" or even make your own decision about which services you will purchase and which you will forego. Once you present yourself, the MD tells you what you will buy but almost never tells you what it will cost until you receive the bill :mad:
Au contraire, Once I had been diagnosed by Mayo, (after seeing about 30 different doctors here in Chicago trying to findout what I had, so call that 30 different 2nd opinions.) I went and talked with two different Oncologists here about treatment options. With option 1 always being "Do Nothing".
Which is why there is insurance. Insurance is suppose to transfer and cover risk, not be a welfare program. You buy it prior to needing it. No one sells you car insurance AFTER you had an accident. (They might, but it won't cover the accident you just had.)
And yes, you can negotiate fees for services, if you pay cash. That's precisely what insurance companies do. They tell the hospital "We'll pay $X for Y procedure." The hospital can take or leave it. If they take it, they are "In-Network". If they don't, they are "Out-of-Network." When I went to out-of-network Doc's I would negotiate prices if I hadn't meet the OON and/or Max Family Out of Pocket. Every single one gave a discount for cash. Like any other purchase, you just have to be a informed consumer. Most people aren't because they expect real life to be like "House" or "ER" or "Grey's Anatomy". Those shows don't show the business side of Healthcare, just the Drama and Docs as all seeing, all knowing, all powerful healers of any and all aliments. Which like everything else on TV is a load of crap.
The problem with health care costs is being driven by the providers, doctors, and hospitals.
Their cost structures are ridiculously high, and there is no accountability.
Insurance companies now are just trying to use their size to negotiate discount rates for services.
Neighbor's son just had back surgery last week.
His surgery was to fix screws that were installed incorrectly during the last surgery.
The surgery should be no charge, as it was not done correctly the first time, but he will be charged the full ride.
This is bullshit, and is devoid of accountability.
He also is fighting a nasty infection that he got in the hospital.
He is also being charged for these costs, which is bullshit, as he did nothing wrong.
This is also devoid of accountability for the hospital.
In both these incidents, there would be no charge if is was a car going back to the shop who did the original work.
My belief is that is we can correct these kind if problems, force accountability to doctors and hospitals, make them fix their screw-ups for free, that the cost of health care would drop dramatically, and employers and people would be able to afford that was reasonable priced.
ETA - Bottom line is to fix the problem on the front end, not the back end.
1) Insurance companies have been using their size for years (with help from the .gov) to drive down their costs.
2) When you say "installed incorrectly" what exactly do you mean? Put in the wrong place? (Right foot instead of the left). Put in upside down or backwards? Or did it not heal the way the doctor expected it to. (It's amazing to me the number of people who think that if they don't do exactly what the Doc's, nurses, therapists tell them to do that they will still get "all better" and then are shocked and want to blame the Healthcare Provider(s) when they don't. Have him check his warranty card and see what his options are. Oh, that's right. Humans are not cars. You don't come out of the hospital with a 12 months/12,000 miles on parts, 3 years/36,000 miles on labor warranty after a "repair". And once something breaks or goes wonky in a human, it's almost impossible to bring ti back to 100%. So unless the doc did something more or less intentional that made things worse, then he did nothing wrong.
3) Last I checked hospitals are not sterile, germ-free environments. Did any visiting family perhaps have dog crap (dried or fresh) on their shoes? How about coughs, cold, allergies? Was he in a plastic bubble during his stay or in an open air room (with perhaps another patient or three? Did he sign an informed consent that told him "We're going to cut you open, you might get an infection."? If so, then he knew the risks. Sometimes, we don't always get the rewards. Someone has to be in that small percentage that the docs warn you about. And he knew he could decline. Medicine has come a long way from Civil War days, when docs used the same instruments on patient after patient after patient. While we have reduced the number of deaths from infections, that number is not 0.
4) The fact is, is that there are far to many variables with the human body (and especially between) human bodies to make medicine nothing more then educated guesses. We can't be hooked up to a voltmeter or oscilloscope and announce "It's a bad fuse or a bad relay" (see several threads where those questions are asked and the variety of answers!). My docs never gave me odds, but told me things like "In 82 of 100 people over several studies this treatment did X, which was good. In 18 out of 100, it did Y, which is bad. Your call."
So you pays your money and you takes your chances. Just like everything else in life, there are no guarantees.
-
Thank you scout, great post!
-
I don't have health insurance but I do have health care. Years ago telling a provider you didn't have insurance coverage resulted in the third-eye stare. Now days it is a well drilled process. My dentist provided me all he documentation I would need to shop for a root canal. Endodontists (?sp) had no problem with giving me a quotation. Recently I had a problem with the knee show up. A trip to the orthopedist required an MRI of the knee. Once again they provided all the paperwork I needed to get quotations. I got 4 quotations for an MRI with prices ranging from $2,300 to $385. The MRI confirmed the diagnosis. Subsequent treatment was paid with cash which featured an on the spot discount. I'll eventually have to have surgery. I'm investigating the costs in different hospitals and different states. So yes, you can shop for healthcare. Fortunately my situation is simple but I would expect the same mechanism is in place for more complicated problems.
One other thought. I will add to birdman's list one other improvement. Learn the difference between insurance and pre-paid medical expense. Seems to me the distinction has been lost over the years of employer paid benefits.
-
The problem with health care costs is being driven by the providers, doctors, and hospitals.
Their cost structures are ridiculously high, and there is no accountability.
Insurance companies now are just trying to use their size to negotiate discount rates for services.
Neighbor's son just had back surgery last week.
His surgery was to fix screws that were installed incorrectly during the last surgery.
The surgery should be no charge, as it was not done correctly the first time, but he will be charged the full ride.
This is bullshit, and is devoid of accountability.
He also is fighting a nasty infection that he got in the hospital.
He is also being charged for these costs, which is bullshit, as he did nothing wrong.
This is also devoid of accountability for the hospital.
In both these incidents, there would be no charge if is was a car going back to the shop who did the original work.
My belief is that is we can correct these kind if problems, force accountability to doctors and hospitals, make them fix their screw-ups for free, that the cost of health care would drop dramatically, and employers and people would be able to afford that was reasonable priced.
ETA - Bottom line is to fix the problem on the front end, not the back end.
Was the doctor or hospital negligent? If not, then no. It's not bullshit. If the doc installed then wrong, I agree, he should be fixing them for free. If the hospital wasn't properly maintained, I agree, they should cover the infection.
But there is a very important and oft overlooked aspect of medical care and life in general. This aspect is called "*expletive deleted*it Happens". And it is often confused with "They Screwed Up."
Screw ups happen. And when they do, then the responsible part should cover their screw up. But just as often things fall under the realm of *expletive deleted*it Happens.
-
Au contraire, Once I had been diagnosed by Mayo, (after seeing about 30 different doctors here in Chicago trying to findout what I had, so call that 30 different 2nd opinions.) I went and talked with two different Oncologists here about treatment options. With option 1 always being "Do Nothing".
Which is why there is insurance. Insurance is suppose to transfer and cover risk, not be a welfare program. You buy it prior to needing it. No one sells you car insurance AFTER you had an accident. (They might, but it won't cover the accident you just had.)
You don't always get options.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/07/07/call-kurtis-i-dont-have-insurance-dont-take-me-to-the-hospital/
-
Was the doctor or hospital negligent? If not, then no. It's not bullshit. If the doc installed then wrong, I agree, he should be fixing them for free. If the hospital wasn't properly maintained, I agree, they should cover the infection.
But there is a very important and oft overlooked aspect of medical care and life in general. This aspect is called "*expletive deleted* Happens". And it is often confused with "They Screwed Up."
Screw ups happen. And when they do, then the responsible part should cover their screw up. But just as often things fall under the realm of *expletive deleted* Happens.
When I explain this to the people that are suing my healthcare providers, I say 'sometimes bad things happen to good people, and that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone did anything wrong.'. Same sentiment, but put nicer for the unhappy patients.
-
Eliminate insurance entirely, both public and private. Insurance has eliminated relative value entirely from the health care system, and remains the only hugely profitable part of it. It's nothing but a ponzi scheme. A doctors visit or a triple bypass should have a fair market value, like anything else.
-
And don't think leaving it to "the states" will solve the problem. It won't. What RomneyCare reflects is liberal premises and values that pervade most of American culture.
-
No, the problem is not insurance (Although it has grown far beyond what it was intended for) it is that X procedure costs $Y. However, Medicare will only pay $(Y-Z). Medicaid will pay $(Y-Z-Q).
So when docs have to do X procedure on those without insurance (Medicare, Medicaid or nothing at all [cough]illegal aliens[cough]) they have to charge the insurance companies $(Y+Y+Z+Q) to try to recoup their losses. But the Insurance companies negotiates a lower rate (in exhange for directing it's paying customer to that Doc/Hospital/Facility) so that now no one really knows what it costs to do X Procedure.
I'm sick of the sob stories of I owe the hospital and docs $$$$$$$ because I didn't have health insurance. You can get your own, it can be pricey, however, once again, you pay your money and you take your chances.
Back in the olden days it was "Medical Insurance" It covered you going to the hospital. For whatever reason. Need to see the family doc because junior has the sniffles. Then break out the checkbook, office visit $25, pay the cashier on the way out. He'll be fine in 2 days. I distinctly remember my mom paying for office visits.
-
Eliminate insurance entirely, both public and private. Insurance has eliminated relative value entirely from the health care system, and remains the only hugely profitable part of it. It's nothing but a ponzi scheme. A doctors visit or a triple bypass should have a fair market value, like anything else.
This.
Augmented by:
Back in the olden days it was "Medical Insurance" It covered you going to the hospital. For whatever reason. Need to see the family doc because junior has the sniffles. Then break out the checkbook, office visit $25, pay the cashier on the way out. He'll be fine in 2 days. I distinctly remember my mom paying for office visits.
this.
Ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Doctors aren't slaves.
You REALLY want your doctor's office and hospital to have the institutional cleanliness and efficiency on par with Child Protective Services, the Welfare Office, or the Post Office? I don't. I want some disgustingly rich guy with LOTS of money to have oppulent and clean furnishings, with state of the art equipment, to be sawbone-ing on me.
And I'll pay what it takes to get that.
If that means my [insert X procedure here] costs me the same as a financed new car over 5 years, then so be it.
I won't let a doctor whose office looks like the local DMV even touch me.
-
People don't want to pay for what they get. They have "better" things to spend their money on. Ask anyone under 40. Create a society that believes they are entitled to the wealth of others, or, in the case of medical practicioners, the labor of others, and this is where you eventually end up.
If we are going to give "free" medicare to the underclass and illegals compel them to provide free-of-charge services--they and their families--in return. There is a lot of baloney about "we're all in this together." I don't remember anyone in the underclass coming to visit/help my mother when she was elderly. No doubt there were kids with free time, on the dole, who could have made her life easier or just provided companionship. If we're going to have "one nation" there has to be responsibility and accountability and connection. It is all just talk, a smokescreen.