Obamacare
Quote: KeyserSozeSo you pull an article from the Huffington Post. That's freaking hilarious!
Malpractice insurance costs only $3k p/yr. That's even funnier!
You should stick to tying to convince gullible idiots that global warming (oops, I mean climate change) is real.
No, your reading comprehension simply sucks. The site is written by an M.D., using actual data. Huffington Post simply reported on it. You know, like news outlets do, using actual sources rather than pulling fake numbers out of thin air and declaring them to be fact.
Bottom line, I posted data from a credible source, while you posted...nothing. Where's your evidence that typical medical malpractice premiums actually run more than $3k a year? Do you actually have any such evidence, or is thin air your preferred source?
BTW, global warming and climate change describe two different, but related things. If the nuance has escaped you, you'd do better to educate yourself about it, rather than basically bragging that you don't understand the difference.
Quote: boymimbo
And I'll ask it, perhaps in a different way. There has been no debate that costs for healthcare are spiraling out of control. What would you suggest to drive down costs, or is the cost just the costs? Competition certainly isn't open, any many states have only one provider covering 80 - 90% of services. So open up competition by allowing insurers to compete in the nation. What else?
First thing is quit mandating health insurance cover more and more things. Perfect example is substance abuse. I have no need or desire for it, so why should I have to buy it? Or all the screenings and other "preventive" care. Let me make the choice to get that or not, let it be between my provider and myself.
Second is make pricing more transparent. Make providers disclose cost online and possibly at the office. Let me pay right out of my HSA, or direct, to meet my deductible.
Quote:How about a national health cap? That is, after you or your family spends an amount on health care, the government pays the rest and it comes out of everyone's costs as an increase to FICA. Call it medi-help. Make it something like $10,000 / year / individual. Then health insurance prices can be meted out truly based on risk, knowing that the maximum payout would be 10,000 per year + optional expense such as private beds, etc. It's sort of pseudo-socialized health care.
As an old boss used to say, "How about NO.?" The government is not here to insure you from risk in your life. But I would suggest putting plans out like this:
Level 1: This is pre-deductible. Can be $5-10K, depending on what you choose or less if you want to pay higher rates. Basically you are going to pay your own way to this level.
Level 2: This is what a basic plan calls, and would broadly be called "hospitalization." It would cover say $10K to $100K and your insurance would cover 80-90%, again depending on what you wish to pay for in premium, if any.\
Level 3: This would be a "super-cat" plan and cover $100K to say 500-1MM. Again an optional premium.
And the government stays out of it all. No single-payer or so-called "public option."
Quote: MichaelBluejayHuffington Post simply reported on it..
Yeah, ol Huff n Puff.
"While Nevada malpractice insurance rates are between middle to high in comparison with all other states, doctors of many types in Nevada--including general internists, pediatricians and general practice doctors--earn a higher average salary than doctors in any other state. In 2009, one of the highest rates of insurance in Nevada is for OB/GYNs, who may pay between $85,000 for malpractice liability insurance per year up to $142,000 per year for a premium plan by a prominent insurance company. Although the average annual salary for such doctors was around $180,000 in 2009, malpractice insurance can still be a huge financial burden.
Florida has some of the highest rates of liability insurance. Moreover, the deviation between low and high averages varies in Florida more widely than in almost any other state. For instance, a doctor in internal medicine in Florida could expect to pay in excess of $56,000 per year for insurance as of 2009, in contrast with Minnesota's $4,000. General surgeons paid in between $90,000 per year and $175,000 per year or more. OB/GYNs once again could expect the highest rates, with liability coverage ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 per year."
http://www.ehow.com/about_5514154_average-cost-medical-malpractice-insurance.html#ixzz2lX1uRRKe
I'm out of here.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
I'm out of here.
No doubt.
That's how they roll. They read breitbart and think it's real. They suck at the teat of foxnews and believe what they see at wnd. But when you post a link to anything that's not from their echo chamber, then it's all liberal lamestream media all the time. I find it easier to treat them like the petulant children that they are.Quote: MichaelBluejayOh good lord. You guys dinged my evidence because you (wrongly) thought it originated from Huffington Post, and your source is eHow? EHOW?!?!
I'm out of here.
Quote: s2dbakerThey suck at the teat of foxnews and believe what they see at wnd....I find it easier to treat them like the petulant children that they are.
Why are liberals on this board always so angry? Must suck being miserable all the time.
Quote: MichaelBluejayPulling nonsense out of thin air doesn't make it so. Malpractice insurance in the U.S. is actually around just $3k/year. So no, tort reform would not lower prices drastically, or even significantly, at least according to the actual facts here on Planet Earth.
the billions of dollars a year that drug companies, hospitals/clincis, doctors, pharmacies all pay in settlements are all passed on to your the consumer.
Quote: MichaelBluejayPulling nonsense out of thin air doesn't make it so. Malpractice insurance in the U.S. is actually around just $3k/year. So no, tort reform would not lower prices drastically, or even significantly, at least according to the actual facts here on Planet Earth.
A blog isn't a reputable source.
LOL..and he's a california clown with an agenda:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/david-belk-md-alameda
Upon reading reviews, I was interested to see this mad genius I read about. Unfortunately it was nonexistent.
The Good:
He has good advice for obtaining cheap medication.
The Bad:
-He appears to disinterested in his patients. He won't give direct advice for your problems. Much of his advice was surrounded "becoming a park ranger away from the stresses and injuries of society".
-He'll do unusual diagnosis techniques which feel more like an attempt to exact approval from patients.
-He doesn't really have early or late appointments for anyone that works a normal 9-5 job.
Conclusion:
I don't think he is a bad guy, just someone that is burnt out on medicine.
Was this review …?
Quote: MichaelBluejayOh good lord. You guys dinged my evidence because you (wrongly) thought it originated from Huffington Post, and your source is eHow? EHOW?!?!
+1
Ehow, its so laughable. There's a lot of good points made on both sides and I'm thrilled Bluejay is getting into the mix
but
Ehow lol
Oh good lord. You guys dinged my evidence because you (wrongly) thought it originated from Huffington Post, and your source is eHow? EHOW?!?!
Okay..you're a prevaricator with an agenda.
First search result:
https://www.excellusbcbs.com/wps/wcm/connect/b7cdbf66-dd6b-4fb0-9612-47112e93c9f7/Med+Malpractice+FS+2013-EX+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b7cdbf66-dd6b-4fb0-9612-47112e93c9f7
Quote: anonimussOkay..you're a liar with an agenda.
First search result:
https://www.excellusbcbs.com/wps/wcm/connect/b7cdbf66-dd6b-4fb0-9612-47112e93c9f7/Med+Malpractice+FS+2013-EX+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b7cdbf66-dd6b-4fb0-9612-47112e93c9f7
Gee, just what Ehow said. I guess they don't read HuffnPuff either..
Quote: anonimuss...a mindless puppet spouting the days talking points.
Yep, that describes about 99% of the liberals in this country.
Quote: anonimuss
First search result:
https://www.excellusbcbs.com/wps/wcm/connect/b7cdbf66-dd6b-4fb0-9612-47112e93c9f7/Med+Malpractice+FS+2013-EX+FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=b7cdbf66-dd6b-4fb0-9612-47112e93c9f7
From the above link:
Quote:The costs of the medical liability system have been the subject of professional and academic inquiry for more than 40 years.1 In the national debate over health care reform, concerns about reducing the rate of growth of health expenditures reignited interest in medical liability reforms and their potential to save money by reducing the practice of defensive medicine – clinicians’ intentional overuse of health services to reduce their liability risk.
Notwithstanding all of the papers written on the subject, rigorously researched estimates of the system’s costs related to medical malpractice are scarce. Research shows that the impact of medical malpractice coverage and defensive medicine ranges from 2 percent to 10 percent of total health care spending.
The most recent estimate in a major study, published in September 2010, is that overall annual medical liability system costs, including defensive medicine, are $55.6 billion in 2008 dollars, or 2.4 percent of total health care spending. The components of the $55.6 billion are illustrated below..
Is it 2.4 percent like the above study, or 10%, their high mark. 2.4 doesn't sound all that whopping but 10 is a pretty good chunk. 10% to the legal profession like a tip.
..he says without a shred of self awareness.Quote: anonimussOkay..you're a prevaricator with an agenda.
Quote: AZDuffmanFirst thing is quit mandating health insurance cover more and more things. Perfect example is substance abuse. I have no need or desire for it, so why should I have to buy it? Or all the screenings and other "preventive" care. Let me make the choice to get that or not, let it be between my provider and myself.
Second is make pricing more transparent. Make providers disclose cost online and possibly at the office. Let me pay right out of my HSA, or direct, to meet my deductible.
As an old boss used to say, "How about NO.?" The government is not here to insure you from risk in your life. But I would suggest putting plans out like this:
Level 1: This is pre-deductible. Can be $5-10K, depending on what you choose or less if you want to pay higher rates. Basically you are going to pay your own way to this level.
Level 2: This is what a basic plan calls, and would broadly be called "hospitalization." It would cover say $10K to $100K and your insurance would cover 80-90%, again depending on what you wish to pay for in premium, if any.\
Level 3: This would be a "super-cat" plan and cover $100K to say 500-1MM. Again an optional premium.
And the government stays out of it all. No single-payer or so-called "public option."
None of this lowers the price of health care, and that is the root of the problem.
Ontario reimburses its doctors 83% of the fee through the provincial health plan, but what you see is the striking difference in fees based on the type of doctor you are. Fees range from 1,128/yer for low risk doctors such as those in pathology. GPs pay from $3,492 (no ER work) to $11,000 per year (includes obstetrics, surgery shifts, ER). Anathesiologists (SOOPOO) pay $10,992 as well. The highest risk category, by far is obstetrics which runs you $57,420 per year. A national statistic won't work, because as you can see, those physicians who work in high risk categories can pay up to 50x as much as other doctors.
Duffman asks why only enroll in what you will use. That would greatly disadvantage women. The fact is that women are subject to obstetrics while men are not. However, it does take two to tango, usually, which is why the fees are equalized. It's kind of like car insurance. You will pay a lower premium if you've never had an accident, but you still pay a higher amount depending on the type of car you drive, and not necessarily based on its value, but based on the demographics of people who drive that kind of car.
Quote: boymimboNone of this lowers the price of health care, and that is the root of the problem.
They lower the price of Health INSURANCE.
The price of Health CARE gets lowered because people will shop better when they have to pay more and more direct, so then price competition will happen.
All the socialized medicine schemes do not lower the cost of health care, they just either ration care directly or fix prices which rations care indirectly through shortages as providers stop providing.
The "root of the problem" is the buyer and the payer are two different people. There is no penalty for using your health insurance. People pay for small car accidents to avoid rate increases, but in health insurance they claim as much as possible because "they are paying for it anyways."
So if someone goes to a cardiologist with heart issues would pay higher premiums going foward after the initial visit . Someone who is found to have a brain tumor would get their premiums jacked up? The person in a car accident with spinal injuries and no ability to work should now having used the insurance for the inititial injury treatment, should now pay higher premiums going forward because he will need therapy and further surgery?
you compare healrth insurance to car insurance. Is this the system you are syggesting?
Quote: LarrySpeoplpe pay for small car insurance accidents to prevent their insurance rates from rising. Are you saying that the people who use health insurance should have their premiums increased when they use services like car insurance.
So if someone goes to a cardiologist with heart issues would pay higher premiums going foward after the initial visit . Someone who is found to have a brain tumor would get their premiums jacked up? The person in a car accident with spinal injuries and no ability to work should now having used the insurance for the inititial injury treatment, should now pay higher premiums going forward because he will need therapy and further surgery?
you compare healrth insurance to car insurance. Is this the system you are syggesting?
I am suggesting there be a disincentive to make claims. As I stated before, this would be in the form of high deductibles. People do not think of health insurance as insurance, they think of it more as a buffet. There must be a rational way to reduce claims.
For starters I would end the $15 office visit, an office visit has a cost basis of closer to $90-100. Again, apply it to a $2,000 or more deductible. OR let people pay a higher premium in exchange fore more concierge style care. In either case what we do *not* need is Obama and the government telling me what is best for me, or anyone else.
Other than perhaps hypochondriacs, who do you believe actually wants to go see a doctor?Quote: AZDuffmanPeople do not think of health insurance as insurance, they think of it more as a buffet.
Quote: s2dbakerOther than perhaps hypochondriacs, who do you believe actually wants to go see a doctor?
Lots of people will go to a doctor for more minor things when the price is low. If the price is higher you are more prone to walk it off and wait it out a few days. Walgreens is already helping here with their clinics so if you have common flu you can get a quick check and script.
Medical care is not immune to the laws of economics.
One of the biggest things that will lower health care costs overall is prevention. Things are much more expensive when they are not prevented. It's much simpler to change a timing belt on your car then to wait for your engine to be replaced. You lower or eliminate the cost to see your doctor and encourage the preventative maintenance -- the physical every couple of years, the visit to the clinic, the lab tests associated with it.
This makes health care alot cheaper. Going on a diet before you become diabetic or morbidly obese, taking heart medication before you have the heart attack, using diet and exercise to lower your blood pressure before the stroke. All of these are much much cheaper than the heart attack, the diabetes treatment, or the stroke, and it makes a healthier nation.
Yet there is no interest in the healthcare industry to do that because it is for profit. That's where ONLY the government can step in, because in a capitalist society, there is no financial interest in keeping people healthy, because then they don't use your services. In fact, the nation is SO capitalist now that workplaces that provide health insurance won't hire fat people or those with poor medical histories (if possible) or women (if possible) because of the costs to their group insurance rates), and that practice borders on discrimination.
Quote: boymimboHere is a link that talks a bit more about malpractice insurance and the ranges from state to state.
Malpractice is uneven in its effects. In some specialties it is going to be lower but in some it literally drives providers out of practice. John Edwards was a perfect example of lawyers doing the later.
Quote:One of the biggest things that will lower health care costs overall is prevention. Things are much more expensive when they are not prevented. It's much simpler to change a timing belt on your car then to wait for your engine to be replaced. You lower or eliminate the cost to see your doctor and encourage the preventative maintenance -- the physical every couple of years, the visit to the clinic, the lab tests associated with it.
This makes health care alot cheaper. Going on a diet before you become diabetic or morbidly obese, taking heart medication before you have the heart attack, using diet and exercise to lower your blood pressure before the stroke. All of these are much much cheaper than the heart attack, the diabetes treatment, or the stroke, and it makes a healthier nation.
Yet there is no interest in the healthcare industry to do that because it is for profit. That's where ONLY the government can step in, because in a capitalist society, there is no financial interest in keeping people healthy, because then they don't use your services. In fact, the nation is SO capitalist now that workplaces that provide health insurance won't hire fat people or those with poor medical histories (if possible) or women (if possible) because of the costs to their group insurance rates), and that practice borders on discrimination.
No, the government is not the answer. The answer is to reward and punish the individual for their personal choices. I do not want the government telling me what to eat anymore than I want it telling my doctor how to treat me and what they can charge. I want FREEEDOM. What you suggest is totally against personal freedom and responsibility.
330 million people controlling their own situations individually is far better than one government trying to do it for all.
The hardship is that for me paying an extra1250 a year is no big deal based on my salary. However insurance premiums and deductables are the same for people making 10 dollars and hour as they are for people making 100 dollars an hour.
the people who are going to be hurt the most from the fallout of obmama care are the low income people who put him in office.
my company and others have gone to hireing part time people to replace full timers that leave to avoid this healthcare fiasco.
Our workforce will be filled with people making less money, having to purchase their own healthcare from the govt website.
People making less money /spending less money will kill the economy.
Imagine the spending power of a person now who has only part tme available to them, has to purchase their own healthcare online, and feed and house a family.
Hmmm...how much disposible income will these people have to drive the economy?
Quote: LarryS
Imagine the spending power of a person now who has only part tme available to them, has to purchase their own healthcare online, and feed and house a family.
Hmmm...how much disposible income will these people have to drive the economy?
But isn't it all worth it now that the top 1% are paying their fair share? (for those in Rio Linda and downstate, NY, this is sarcasm)
Peventative healthcare is not on the shoulders of the healthcare system. It is on te shoulders of the individuals.
Just as our failing education system is more a symptom of poor parenting or lack of parenting at home rather than incompetant teachers in the schools,
If someone goes to the md for a yearly checkup and is told by the md to lose some weight, watch what they eat, and excersize. Do you think the go home and buy a treadmill and throw out the frosted flakes?
Our society wants the easy way out...no sacrifice. As I said beofre...for 30 years as a pharmacist people come up to me and ask what over the counter pill I reccomend for losing weight. I tell them I dont reccomend any of them...just diet and exercise. They are dissapointed and sometimes disgusted by the answer. They dont want to hear that. They dont want to make sacrifuces. They dont want to have discipline. They want a magic pill to "melt away" fat as they sleep after they have come home from the all you can eat buffet.
Here is proof how sick our society is. There is a product on the market that will prevent your body from absorbing alot of the fat you eat. Thereby allowing you to eat fatty foods and not gain as much weight. The fat is not absorbed and goes to the intestines and colon. A major side effect of this medication which can be bought over the counter is severe gas and oily diarrhea. So severe that the manufacturer reccomends that people carry a change of clothing with them because the gas and liquid oily diarrhea can expell. And people buy this crap. Its expensive,..and people buy it...because they would rather take a pill and leak oil rather than diet and exercise.
And the healthcare system is supposed to change our society to make them more responsible? Just as teachers are supposed to make parents have interest in their childrens learning and homework away from class....aint gonna happen
Quote: AZDuffmanPeople do not think of health insurance as insurance, they think of it more as a buffet.
Quote: s2dbakerOther than perhaps hypochondriacs, who do you believe actually wants to go see a doctor?
There is a clinic in our area that handles folks on medicaid and other programs meant for the poor. Their health care is free (no co-pays or deductibles...the government or other entities pay for it; no personal responsibility). You'd be amazed at the amount of people who take their children their for the slightest thing--a cold, a slight fever, upset tummy, etc.--that most of us would not dream of taking our kids in for because it is a waste of our resources...time and treasure...when there is nothing seriously amiss. No major pain, no real discomfort...just a little cold...
They take them in. They come back in two days if the problem isn't gone. They want to know why Advil or Tylenol aren't free like everything else.
Is everyone like that? Of course not. Some are hard working folks with low incomes trying to climb the ladder. The problem with "free" to the user things is that it costs them nothing and they don't see the value of the practitioner's time.
So, yes, some people do want to see the doctor in lots of instances you and I would never think of bothering a doctor with...
Instead of making an appoint like you and me for their child with strep throat with a local MD..its easier for them to show up unnnounced at an emergency room
Often costing the system 5x the cost or more than if at a local md office. Uninsured people do the same thing..just show up at the emergency room.
Yes if you show up at an emergency room with a child that has a fever, you will wait a long time as the more severe cases are handled. But if you are on welfare..you have the time to kill.
its not the hard working people that are draining the system. Hard working people barely have time to visit a doctor let alone make many un-needed trips to them
if anything, the hard working people under use
Does this include the Walmart employees that collect welfare?Quote: LarrySBut if you are on welfare..you have the time to kill.
Quote: MichaelBluejayPulling nonsense out of thin air doesn't make it so. Malpractice insurance in the U.S. is actually around just $3k/year. So no, tort reform would not lower prices drastically, or even significantly, at least according to the actual facts here on Planet Earth.
I clicked on the link, and have absolutely no idea what that invoice is for. I can assure you no doc pays PAC dues with a malpractice bill. And I cannot imagine a full time practicing doc paying that little. Certain specialties pay in excess of 100k per year. I actually cannot believe that you, Mr. Bluejay, actually believes that malpractice insurance costs 3k per year.
Quote: rxwineIf you capped compensation for injury awards isn't that again just messing with the free market? Who gets to decide what is the right way to make money in a capitalistic system as long as it's already legal?
No, you are not. There is nothing capitalistic about punitive damages. They are awarded only to punish, not to compensate. Nothing is created. They have become little more than a shakedown.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, you are not. There is nothing capitalistic about punitive damages. They are awarded only to punish, not to compensate. Nothing is created. They have become little more than a shakedown.
A private prison system doesn't make anything (well they don't have to anyway). They aren't allowed to compete?
Quote: rxwineA private prison system doesn't make anything (well they don't have to anyway). They aren't allowed to compete?
Not quite what that has to do with anything, but a private prison system is just a privatized/outsourced operator providing a service to the government cheaper than the government can do itself.
Are you trying to go somewhere with any of this?
Punitive damages or exemplary damages are damages intended to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
It goes on to describe them as a "settled principle" of common law...but doesn't it seem that we have pushed them way too far? Even in a capitalistic society, there will always be a right way to make money...and a wrong way to do it. Making that argument is kind of like saying Madoff and his ilk were just fine. They were only trying to make money...
Malpractice is expensive...it costs lots of doctors much more than $3,000 a year...
"Location Matters-A 2010 survey by the “Medical Liability Monitor” compared premiums for three specialties in various areas of the country. Internists in Dade County, Fla., paid $48,245 annually in 2010, while general surgeons paid $192,982. In comparison, internists in the lowest-cost areas of California paid only $3,200 and general surgeons had the lowest premiums in Minnesota at $11,306 annually. OB-GYN premiums varied from a low of $13,400 in the lowest-cost areas of California to a high of $204,864 in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk in New York."
http://work.chron.com/much-doctors-pay-insurance-7304.html
Injury lawyers also punish people and provide a service to compensate injured people. No one wants to go to the lawyer who doesn't win any compensation.
Quote: RonCMaking that argument is kind of like saying Madoff and his ilk were just fine. They were only trying to make money...
Malpractice is expensive...it costs lots of doctors much more than $3,000 a year...
I agree the free market sometimes needs to be reined in. I'm just curious why some claim the market should be free for all, but then, not really.
Quote: rxwinePrivate prisons don't make anything. They are punitive. They compete for contracts.
Please quit being so daft. You need to learn how "punitive" is being used. They are punitive to the prisoners, they provide a service to the community.
Quote:Injury lawyers also punish people and provide a service to compensate injured people. No one wants to go to the lawyer who doesn't win any compensation.
You will need to learn the difference between "compensatory damages" and "punitive damages" if you wish to continue the conversation along these lines.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou will need to learn the difference between "compensatory damages" and "punitive damages" if you wish to continue the conversation along these lines.
You want to regulate the free market where you believe it is necessary. That's all that is necessary to know.
Besides the injury lawyers, if any on here, can squash your arguments. I would bet on it.
Quote: rxwineYou want to regulate the free market where you believe it is necessary.
I wish I had 5 hands. That way, I could do a *facepalm* 5 times in a row after reading one of rxwine's posts.
How ignorant does a person have to be to think that a court judgment is the "free market"? *facepalm*
Quote: Beethoven9thI wish I had 5 hands. That way, I could do a *facepalm* 5 times in a row after reading one of rxwine's posts.
How ignorant does a person have to be to think that a court judgment is the "free market"? *facepalm*
Your point is kind of irrelevant, because a lawyer who never wins any of those judgments for his client will eventually not make any money for services rendered. So he would go out of business. Presumedly, unless he can perform the service successfully a few times, or does something different.
Quote: rxwineYour point is kind of irrelevant, because a lawyer who never wins any of those judgments for his client will eventually not make any money for services rendered. So he would go out of business. Presumedly, unless he can perform the service successfully a few times, or does something different.
Another post that makes no sense.
And another *facepalm*
