Reply With Quote
illegal and legal
You mean those able-bodied men that decided to save a buck and went for the public plan instead of paying for a private one? I mean, it's not like you don't have a choice.
illegal and legal
I am for tort reform if it truly did what its proponents say it would.
I am willing to try it to see if it works. The data that I have seen in the form of the white papers that analyse health care cost increases is that malpractice insurance and such things are far from the primary cost drivers tht some think they are.
People who need routine medical care are given free doctors visits if they show up at any clinic or hospital?
There is a huge difference between mandatory ER admits and the kinds of healthcare that is inaccessable to a lot of people that would keep them out ofthe ER in the first place.
Don't know if you read the rest of my post or not; I DO think everyone needs coverage - a 3rd party payor, if you will....
However; just a little anecdote:
My wife has a cousin - 27 years old. VERY big girl (5'2" 300+ lbs (thank God doesn't run in the family). Anyway, has no job; not on Medicaid, is a hypochondriac to boot - no insurance. She goes to the doctor weekly, takes a number of maintenance drugs; in the hospital a couple of times a year......never has to pay for any of it. If SHE is able to get all the healthcare she needs (and more)...who is being denied?
And again, as I said earlier, I do not believe this is a good, or efficient way to handle our uninsured.
You bring up a good point, that there are people that will abuse the system.
I can't think of any good way to combat that, in all honesty.
There is abuse in any system. No way around it, one has to understand this, as it is a rather important bit.
My point is not that she abuses the system; it's that the system allows her to abuse the system; get all the care she desires; without "coverage".
Proponents of changing the system constantly cite people not getting treated - my point is: If my cousin in law, with no coverage or money whatsoever, can get treated - who cannot?
And again, so we don't get off track - I want everyone covered because it will be more efficient; and everyone should be.
Gimme some of that European Healthcare!
A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
By Daniel Martin
Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.
Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.
But the average wait is nine months - and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer.
There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later.
The study by the National Audit Office found that patients do not know enough about the condition, and therefore delay going to see their GP.
Between half and three-quarters of people with symptoms wait more than three months before seeking medical help, and about a fifth delay for a year or more.
GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment, the report adds.
Its author, Chris Groom, said: 'This is a nasty disease, a progressive auto-immune disease, which attacks otherwise healthy joints. Early symptoms are joint pain and stiffness and it leads to inflammation and loss of strength.
'It also affects other parts of the body, such as the heart and lungs, and is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.'
The report found that the average length of time from the onset of symptoms to treatment has not improved in the past five years. Mr Groom said that services needed to be better coordinated and designed around people's needs, including helping them remain in work.
Three-quarters of sufferers are of working age when diagnosed, meaning delays cost the economy almost £2billion a year - about £560million a year in NHS healthcare costs and £1.8billion in sick leave and work-related disability.
'Once people fall out of the job market with this disease, it is very hard to get back in', Mr Groom said.
The report also found that 50 per cent more people have rheumatoid arthritis than was previously thought.
Mr Groom added: 'We estimate that 580,000 adults in England have the condition, which is higher than existing estimates of 400,000 for the UK, and that there are 26,000 new cases each year in England, compared to estimates of 12,000 for the UK.'
Neil Betteridge, chief executive of the charity Arthritis Care, said: 'The report echoes what people with rheumatoid arthritis have been telling Arthritis Care for years.
'Early diagnosis and referral for suitable treatment is crucial as it can stop this debilitating condition in its tracks.
'We applaud the audit's recommendations that the Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts replace their often scattergun delivery with joined-up services.'
Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the NHS needed to improve support services for people with arthritis.
Health minister Ann Keen said: 'We welcome this report and will consider it carefully before responding.'
Having a few medical practices as customers, I can tell you that malpractice insurance is the number two cost driver. Insurance companies being the number one. At least in their case.
I don't know how this applies to hospitals, etc.
It's not just patients abusing the system. There was an article about McAllen, TX not long ago having the most expensive care cost per person under Medicare. What the reporter found out was that doctors were gaming the system by ordering all these completely unnecessary tests.
There has to be a checks and balances system in place, obviously.
(Evil) Insurance companies help keep those in check.
I was reading this the other day about my state. According to state law here (Family act, or some such), In Vitro fertilization is obligatory for insurance companies to pay for on companies with over 500 employees, the sole exceptions being if the insured is a government employee or if the company is 'self-insured' (whatever that means).
Guess what? Most of all companies with 500 or more employees in the state are now magically 'self-insured'.
This is the kind of loophole bull I really want to do away with.
Well, Evil Insurance companies actually have been raising the cost for uninsured patients for a long time now.
Since they're only going to pay for a % of the actual value of a procedure, doctors end up having to overcharge in order to get the amount that they want. This is how the last time I went to the dentist, he did x-rays and fixed 2 cavities and he charged the insurance $1250, of which he only got paid back $300.
It ed me over, because I only get 80% coverage on dental. Which means I had to pay almost $250. It goes without saying I won't be going to that dentist anymore.
What's even more aggravating is that if I had to actually pay out of pocket, the cost would have been $1250. Which is simply delusional.
The amount of abuse in the system is a function of the culture in which the system is operated. This is why, for example, Germany can have a generous unemployment insurance system where few try to game the system, while in Argentina you can't even order food without a regimented system of tickets and stamps to ensure people don't steal one another's orders.
Americans are not very honest compared to other countries' citizens, which is both why we end up needing more social services, and why they are horribly corrupt and wasteful.
Public policy can't turn into gold, no matter how many ways it comes up with to polish the turd.
ERISA (Federal Level) forbids states from regulating Self-Insured plans. It's not magic; most employers over 250 employees are self-insured, and have been for years.
In Vitro a requirement?Leads to multiple, premature births (very expensive to deal with, and is expensive in its own right).
And people wonder why health care is so damned expensive.
Always get a "predetermination" when getting dental procedures; that'll NEVER happen again.
At some point in time, it became the quintessential American at ude for one to demand lots of goods and services, but refuse to pay for them.
It is both the reason for the drive towards Big Government and the reason it is doomed to fail.
What will never happen again? Me getting my tooth fixed?
The dental was just a personal example. It happens on medicine in general at every level.
I do wonder. Because that exact same procedure costs $25,000 here in the US, while it costs $5,000 overseas.
The last time I had multiple cavities fixed back in my country, it cost me a succulent $30 dollars. Compare that to $1,250 in the US.
The fact that you don't wonder why they can do the exact same procedures for 500+% cheaper is the reason you keep paying through your nose for everything you get done here.
No, your not having to pay more than the benefit available.
I can buy leather wallets in Mexico for a buck; Whiskey at 30 cents on the dollar, and can stay in a 5 star hotel for 40 dollars a night. I had a friend from German visit last year; Timex watches cost a quarter here of what they do back home; he bought a dozen for his clients; and was excited as ; they're gonna think he's generous as . That's right. Timex.
Why should healthcare be different than everything else?
But I didn't pay more than the benefit available. I don't think you understood my example at all. Which would explain a lot.
Because I do honestly believe there's a clear distinction between luxury items (your items) and people's access to health care. I don't necessarily mind doctors or companies making SOME profit, but I draw the line where the greed actually gets in the way of providing care to those who need it.
Remember the government option will always be subsidized, thus it will be cheaper. The great MD's and better Doctors can decide they don't want to take people who on that cheaper subsidized government plan. And, usually those MD's are the ones people want to see.
You think Congress will elect the government option for themselves. That will be the day.
Government run health-care will never result in a more quality efficient system. Government interference has never been the answer and never will. The government is not supposed to be running our healthcare.
We are in a deep recession, the plans to pay for this 1 trillion dollar health reform need to be carefully debated, not pushed through without careful contemplation. Nobody can afford this right now. We are leaving a terrible debt to our children and grandchildren.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions