Jump to content

Healthcare reform


kapkomet
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 11:20 AM)
No, they don't openly advocate for socialism or communism or a whole range of liberal points. You're still conflating Democrats and left-wingers. There really is no mainstream media voice out there advocating far-left-wing views.

 

there is also no real conservative news source. FOX news is neo-con trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:14 AM)
So no one has figured out how your insurance company's requirement to produce a profit results in better health care for you? I wasn't able to figure that out either. Currently insurance companies control what your Doctor, hospital, etc are being paid. Do you believe if your insurance negotiates lower reimbursment rates (increasing their profits) it will cause you to receive better or worse care? If Humana (to pick on one) pays a Doctor $25 per office visit, do you think he's thinking, hey if I offer superior services they will increase what I am getting paid? Or is he thinking, I'm only getting $25 for this patient, but $32 for that one, if I spend less time with the $25 patient I can increase my profitability? After all, profits drive innovation and better care.

 

That's not how it works, but ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 07:01 PM)
That's not how it works, but ok.

 

 

Tell me how your insurance company's requirement for profits helps your health care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 09:02 AM)
Tell me how your insurance company's requirement for profits helps your health care?

 

Do you understand what insurance is (or, what it's supposed to be?)

 

Tell me what any risk based anything "for profits" helps anything, anywhere? That's pretty much the lib mindset now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 09:14 AM)
So no one has figured out how your insurance company's requirement to produce a profit results in better health care for you? I wasn't able to figure that out either. Currently insurance companies control what your Doctor, hospital, etc are being paid. Do you believe if your insurance negotiates lower reimbursment rates (increasing their profits) it will cause you to receive better or worse care? If Humana (to pick on one) pays a Doctor $25 per office visit, do you think he's thinking, hey if I offer superior services they will increase what I am getting paid? Or is he thinking, I'm only getting $25 for this patient, but $32 for that one, if I spend less time with the $25 patient I can increase my profitability? After all, profits drive innovation and better care.

 

That's not how it works at all, nor has it ever, and of everyone here, I actually *do* know how it works.

 

We have minor control over what doctors, hospitals and other health care providers are being paid for routine services (this is part of the initial negotiation) and only applies to the routine, such as yearly checks, etc. We have no control over what they charge for any/all non routine services. The only thing we can do is see if what they're charging is in line with what most others charge and go from there. One broken arm may take 15 minutes to reset/case, while another may take an hour for who knows what reason -- but the charge will be 4X more for the latter and there isn't much we can say, as they can cite numerous reasons why it took longer and/or needed to take longer. The illusion of this "control" you speak of, is while we know what things "should cost under normal circumstances", we have no way of controlling said circumstances or the quantity of services being administered. For example, if you are suffering from an ailment and the doctor asks to see you once a week for the next 3 months "for checkups", we can't stop them, but we know the average price these checkups should cost, unless he did something extra during these checkups...but that doesn't mean much when he wants 12 checkups when 1 would have sufficed. Also, keep in mind when you see "Laboratory Services" on a claim from a doctor with a 2,000$ charge...that could mean a LOT of things, and there isn't much we can say about it. There are so many ways doctors/hospitals can jack up the costs of patient bills that we have ZERO control over it's not even funny, so stop pretending the insurance companies have this godlike power you seem to think they possess.

 

Those "co pays" you see, or "office visit" charges are ONLY for routine checks, i.e., yearly checkups, and *only* if absolutely nothing is wrong. The reason what you suggest doesn't work, and has never existed, is because if that were the case, doctors would be sure to find something wrong with *every* patient that comes through the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 07:17 AM)
Hey kap, why does a for-profit insurance company benefit me? Explain it to me because I'm a dumb lib.

 

Why does a computer repair tech benefit you?

 

Why does a mechanic benefit you?

 

What kind of question did you honestly ask? Do you REALLY need this answered?

 

Are YOU going to personally deal with the doctors office when they send you a bill for 2,900$ when what you had performed appeared on your bill as:

 

Lab Services : 1,500$

Misc. Services : 500$

Consultation : 700$

Other: 200$

 

Now, if/when this escalates because you disagree with said bill and tell the doctor you aren't paying it, are you going to hire a lawyer to fight the claim in court, too? Because we have to do this quite often.

 

Do you even know what those charges mean or why they are listed? Do you remember every little thing they performed on you when you went in for this office visit? Do you know what the average cost from hundreds of other providers who have doled out similar care are? Can you compare the fact that this doctor charged you 1,500$ for labs when labs shouldn't have even been necessary for what you had performed?

 

The answer is no to all of these.

 

You have no idea...but insurance companies *do*, and while you think they are an evil scheming bastard, they *are* performing a service to you that's far more complex than you could possibly imagine. While I work for a non profit insurance company, I also know that health insurance profits aren't very high unless you speak in strict dollar amounts. The numbers are HUGE because of the amount of claims you're talking about, but their profit margins are actually quite low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 09:41 AM)
Are YOU going to personally deal with the doctors office when they send you a bill for 2,900$ when what you had performed appeared on your bill as:

 

Lab Services : 1,500$

Misc. Services : 500$

Consultation : 700$

Other: 200$

Kap tells me that the way to lower health care costs is for me to be able to shop around for all of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 09:00 PM)
Kap tells me that the way to lower health care costs is for me to be able to shop around for all of those.

 

 

But you're not able. If you were, then you would save on health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2010 -> 09:00 PM)
Kap tells me that the way to lower health care costs is for me to be able to shop around for all of those.

 

That would be one way, but not necessarily the *only* way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 08:33 PM)
Do you understand what insurance is (or, what it's supposed to be?)

 

Tell me what any risk based anything "for profits" helps anything, anywhere? That's pretty much the lib mindset now.

 

Kap, slow down, let's toss aside the predictable path and see where this leads.

 

I do understand risk based insurance, are you understanding the difference between having your car repaired after an accident, replacing your home after a fire, and trying to figure out why you are fatigued, or why you are getting those headaches? Health insurance doesn't function like other types of risk. You insure your home for $X and if it is destroyed you receive $X. Health insurance is very different. The insurance company doesn't have to authorize tests to determine if your car's door was smashed in? They can see it. Not so with some health problems. That leads to a natural conflict between authorizing what is necessary to properly diagnose the problem versus profits. I don't think it is a lib mindset to see the conflict. They lose when you require treatment. The less treatment they can get you to accept, the better for them. That seems at odds to you receiving the best health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 3, 2010 -> 10:32 PM)
True. We could try the British/French/German/Swiss/anyone else's method of a government run plan.

 

Because that's SOOOOOOOO successful to any kind of agressive treatment plans. They just let you die, so that helps their stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 4, 2010 -> 12:18 AM)
Because that's SOOOOOOOO successful to any kind of agressive treatment plans. They just let you die, so that helps their stats.

Really? They just let you die? Why didn't you tell me this months ago! Before I went to Germany, got sick, and DIED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 4, 2010 -> 07:02 AM)
Really? They just let you die? Why didn't you tell me this months ago! Before I went to Germany, got sick, and DIED!

 

 

We're all going to die anyway, right?

 

:lolhitting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 4, 2010 -> 10:06 PM)
Well, unless you earn about $250k per year. Then you're set. That's the way the Republicans like it.

 

 

Come on, that is grossly inaccurate, misleading, and wrong even for you. The $250,000 threshold only applies to minorities, WASPs are admitted at a much lower income level. ;)

 

I kid because I care™

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 08:20 AM)
Come on, that is grossly inaccurate, misleading, and wrong even for you. The $250,000 threshold only applies to minorities, WASPs are admitted at a much lower income level. ;)

 

I kid because I care™

 

this post doesn't make any sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 4, 2010 -> 12:18 AM)
Because that's SOOOOOOOO successful to any kind of agressive treatment plans. They just let you die, so that helps their stats.

You should tell that to my uncle in France who has spent the last 15 years in and out of the hospital with one nearly critical ailment after the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 03:51 PM)
You should tell that to my uncle in France who has spent the last 15 years in and out of the hospital with one nearly critical ailment after the other.

 

If he were here, he'd be better. Oh wait, he'd be dead, because he would never get seen, pre-existing conditions, no insurance, etc. ... ... ... because you know, it's Amerikkka, home of the suckiest health system on earth ™.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 06:36 PM)
If he were here, he'd be better. Oh wait, he'd be dead, because he would never get seen, pre-existing conditions, no insurance, etc. ... ... ... because you know, it's Amerikkka, home of the suckiest health system on earth .

 

 

Amongst the kaperbole is the truth. IF he had insurance, he may have been better off. If he did not have insurance, no doubt he would have been much worse off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 06:36 PM)
If he were here, he'd be better. Oh wait, he'd be dead, because he would never get seen, pre-existing conditions, no insurance, etc. ... ... ... because you know, it's Amerikkka, home of the suckiest health system on earth .

 

 

Amongst the kaperbole is the truth. IF he had insurance, he may have been better off. If he did not have insurance, no doubt he would have been much worse off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 07:21 PM)
Amongst the kaperbole is the truth. IF he had insurance, he may have been better off. If he did not have insurance, no doubt he would have been much worse off.

 

 

Oh no, our system sucks - remember... you go to the ER, you get turned away. You don't get treated. Oh wait, nevermind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 5, 2010 -> 03:51 PM)
You should tell that to my uncle in France who has spent the last 15 years in and out of the hospital with one nearly critical ailment after the other.

 

We could compare stories... My dad is on our version of socialized medicine in the USA as a veteran. Even after the national stories broke about how bad their care was, nothing has changed. As a matter of a fact I could detail the last month of run arounds he has had as he tries to find someone to do an operation that would usually be considered an emergency surgery. At the VA, he got sent home. This is the version of health care that was supposed to be what we should all aspire to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...