Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.

[PoliticalChic]

Do you know how much of the $130.00 billed was allowable under the coverage?

No i don't...and i really don't understand how the insurances work. But it just doesn't seem right that they can charge a different prices than what would be charged without the insurance. But they do and they can get away with it...

They can't charge a different rate for self-pay. It's illegal. Whatever the explanation is is lost somewhere in the tons of stuff you don't understand about how insurance works, and didn't bother to find out in favor of going for "how it seems". Congratulations, you just thought like a liberal.

Why don't you try asking the biller for the doctor's office how it works?

"It's illegal."

What is illegal is asking the patient to pay the difference between the government allowance and the doctor's fee.
If the doctor or hospital accepts a patient in association with a government program, he is committed to accepting the pay schedule.

When I was in Lancaster, Pa. I learned that the Amish make a deal with local hospitals to pay for services in cash. They get a low group rate. The are not covered by government plans and do not accept same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Boy....you are my straight man today

I am told how much auto insurance I have to have. I need a certain level of liability insurance, uninsured motorist protection...just to drive

But I am sure glad I have never had to use it in almost 40 years of driving

Did you read post #16?
Do you see auto insurance 'mandating' dozens of requirements?
No?

That's why your analogy fails.

No, I don't read your posts

They tend to be rambling cut and pastes and you just take too damn long to reach your point

Pretty good strategy if you are afraid of being proven wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs... So you believe that over half of Americans were not born in a hospital or medical facility?

And obviously THAT'S just for starters.

PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy!

Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not!

 

[Cecilie1200]

They can't charge a different rate for self-pay. It's illegal.

Under which law?

Since it's considered discrimination, that would be pretty much any law preventing businesses from discriminating. You'll have to look it up for your particular state, because I have no intention of researching all fifty states for you.

 

[HUGGY]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs... So you believe that over half of Americans were not born in a hospital or medical facility?

And obviously THAT'S just for starters.

PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy!

Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not!

Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!!

 

[rightwinger]

Did you read post #16?
Do you see auto insurance 'mandating' dozens of requirements?
No?

That's why your analogy fails.

No, I don't read your posts

They tend to be rambling cut and pastes and you just take too damn long to reach your point

Pretty good strategy if you are afraid of being proven wrong.

It not that

You are just capable of doing better. You are obviously quite bright but your posts are intellectually lazy.

In terms of proving your point, more is not better

 

[Greenbeard]

Since it's considered discrimination, that would be pretty much any law preventing businesses from discriminating. You'll have to look it up for your particular state, because I have no intention of researching all fifty states for you.

Price discrimination on the basis of payer is one of the hallmarks of our system, hence the administrative complexity. We don't have all-payer rates, thus different buyers of services from health care providers will pay different rates for the same service. Maryland's hospitals are the exception to this, since that state does have an all-payer rate-setting system for hospitals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No i don't...and i really don't understand how the insurances work. But it just doesn't seem right that they can charge a different prices than what would be charged without the insurance. But they do and they can get away with it...

They can't charge a different rate for self-pay. It's illegal. Whatever the explanation is is lost somewhere in the tons of stuff you don't understand about how insurance works, and didn't bother to find out in favor of going for "how it seems". Congratulations, you just thought like a liberal.

Why don't you try asking the biller for the doctor's office how it works?

"It's illegal."

What is illegal is asking the patient to pay the difference between the government allowance and the doctor's fee.
If the doctor or hospital accepts a patient in association with a government program, he is committed to accepting the pay schedule.

When I was in Lancaster, Pa. I learned that the Amish make a deal with local hospitals to pay for services in cash. They get a low group rate. The are not covered by government plans and do not accept same.

Well, I don't live in Pennsylvania, and we don't have any Amish or comparable groups where I live, so it's hard to say for sure. But my guess would be that, because of their special circumstances and because they're negotiating those fee schedules as a group, they're being treated in the same way that an insurance provider, who negotiates a fee schedule for all of his policyholders with the provider, is treated. I will also bet you money that if a doctor in Pennsylvania started advertising special prices and discounts for self-paying patients over insured patients, his ass would be sued. I know that's the case here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They can't charge a different rate for self-pay. It's illegal. Whatever the explanation is is lost somewhere in the tons of stuff you don't understand about how insurance works, and didn't bother to find out in favor of going for "how it seems". Congratulations, you just thought like a liberal.

Why don't you try asking the biller for the doctor's office how it works?

"It's illegal."

What is illegal is asking the patient to pay the difference between the government allowance and the doctor's fee.
If the doctor or hospital accepts a patient in association with a government program, he is committed to accepting the pay schedule.

When I was in Lancaster, Pa. I learned that the Amish make a deal with local hospitals to pay for services in cash. They get a low group rate. The are not covered by government plans and do not accept same.

Well, I don't live in Pennsylvania, and we don't have any Amish or comparable groups where I live, so it's hard to say for sure. But my guess would be that, because of their special circumstances and because they're negotiating those fee schedules as a group, they're being treated in the same way that an insurance provider, who negotiates a fee schedule for all of his policyholders with the provider, is treated. I will also bet you money that if a doctor in Pennsylvania started advertising special prices and discounts for self-paying patients over insured patients, his ass would be sued. I know that's the case here.

A doctor who chooses not to accept Medicare patients can charge any fee he desires.
He can refuse to accept insurance plans...and then you pay him and hope to get reimbursed by your insurance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs... So you believe that over half of Americans were not born in a hospital or medical facility?

And obviously THAT'S just for starters.

PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy! PC is a dummy!

Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not! Am not!

Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!! Are to!!

Whoa! You are in BIG trouble now!

I'm telling!

 

[kiwiman127]

I think at least one possible answer is more competition for insurance companies nation-wide. More choices is always good, plus I'd do some kind of tort reform to hold down the costs.

Tort reform would cut the costs but only by 2-3%.

The US's cost compared to the rest of the world are obscene, why people sit back and let themselves get steamrolled by far the highest costs in the world totally is amazing. Tort reform isn't the big answer to stop the runaway cost.

 

[Flopper]

Why should a majority of the under-65 population be subject to a health insurance requirement when they consume little or no healthcare?

You seem to be implying that most people under 65 really don't want healthcare insurance. They would prefer to risk the the health and financial future of themselves and their family. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of people under 65 who do not carry health insurance do so because either they can't get it or they can't afford it.

Most Americans don't use healthcare? Well, that's like saying most Americans don't use an emergency room. Almost everyone will need healthcare and will need it badly. If they are among the lucky few who don't, their spouse or other family members will.

 

[Political Junky]

Obviously, all conservatives should cancel their health insurance.

 

[editec]

It is my understanding that 20% of the population consumes 80% of the health care dollars.

I am also informed that more than 50% of all HC dollars are spent on people's LAST YEAR OF LIFE.

These stats are obviously to be expected given the nature of human health and the fact that most HC dollars are spend on people who are actually sick.

All I know is that I am damned glad I have a 100% SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM backing me up.

I just wish all Americans had a system as good for the health care.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think at least one possible answer is more competition for insurance companies nation-wide. More choices is always good, plus I'd do some kind of tort reform to hold down the costs.

Tort reform would cut the costs but only by 2-3%.

The US's cost compared to the rest of the world are obscene, why people sit back and let themselves get steamrolled by far the highest costs in the world totally is amazing. Tort reform isn't the big answer to stop the runaway cost.

Searching for a correct post of yours is like seeking a reference to cats in the bible.


Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - Tampa Bay Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!

Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


But...please continue, as your posts on this subject make those of us who actually know, look like geniuses!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why should a majority of the under-65 population be subject to a health insurance requirement when they consume little or no healthcare?

You seem to be implying that most people under 65 really don't want healthcare insurance. They would prefer to risk the the health and financial future of themselves and their family. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of people under 65 who do not carry health insurance do so because either they can't get it or they can't afford it.

Most Americans don't use healthcare? Well, that's like saying most Americans don't use an emergency room. Almost everyone will need healthcare and will need it badly. If they are among the lucky few who don't, their spouse or other family members will.

Sorry if it comes across that way. My premise is that there is a better way than government one-size-for-all coercion as the answer.

It is not.

Freedom and liberty apply to healthcare.

Now, for a bedtime tale, on that point:


The Dog and the Wolf

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"

"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."
"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."
Better starve free than be a fat slave.
Doctor Aesop

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously, all conservatives should cancel their health insurance.

If I had a file of all of your inane and worthless posts, I could stand on it to change a lightbulb.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is my understanding that 20% of the population consumes 80% of the health care dollars.

I am also informed that more than 50% of all HC dollars are spent on people's LAST YEAR OF LIFE.

These stats are obviously to be expected given the nature of human health and the fact that most HC dollars are spend on people who are actually sick.

All I know is that I am damned glad I have a 100% SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM backing me up.

I just wish all Americans had a system as good for the health care.

"All I know is that I am damned glad I have a 100% SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM backing me up."

I certainly agree that the American healthcare system is the best in the world.

Your error is in believing it is the 'socialized' aspect that makes it so: it is the American aspect.

Removing the government coercion and meddling would make it as good, but cheaper.

 

[HUGGY]

Half of Americans consume almost no healthcare.


You must be counting the people that have died during the last thirty years.

It's true that they consume almost no health care. And it would make your claim true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, I don't read your posts

They tend to be rambling cut and pastes and you just take too damn long to reach your point

Pretty good strategy if you are afraid of being proven wrong.

It not that

You are just capable of doing better. You are obviously quite bright but your posts are intellectually lazy.

In terms of proving your point, more is not better

Hmmmm.....that sounds suspiciously like an excuse.