Pre-existing conditions coverage

[dnsmith35]

Ah... so you don't just want the federal government to force the young and healthy to subsidize the old and sick in general, you want them to be forced to subsidize YOU, personally.

The young don't have to subsidize me. I paid for my medicare over 45 years. You are doing the same.....unless you are a tax cheat.

Nothing here changes the fact that you suupport involuntary servitude.

Yet nothing about it is unfair. Actually what is wrong and unfair is to choose not to be covered and expect society to take care of you in an emergency.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

Insuring a condition that already exists is asking an auto policy carrier to allow coverage on a vehicle that is already damaged.
However, I will stipulate that yes, insurers would carry such coverage. But there must a trade off. The premiums must be much larger to cover the risk the insurance company is to assume.

 

[Andylusion]

This is one of the most popular provisions in an otherwise despised law, Obamacare. It polls consistently well. And it sounds good: Insirance companies cannot deny coverage for pre existing conditions. Right?
But why would they deny coverage to begin with?
When they are forced to issue policies to people with pre existing conditions, who pays for the higher risk the company incurs by insuring them?
I realize these are beyond Stage One questions so the leftists here wont have a clue what I mean. But maybe some of the more informed posters can chime in.

It is precisely because of the requirement to insure high risk customers that we have an individual mandate. The expense of the high risk customers is offset by forcing low risk customers into the pool.

You mean to say after all these years bloviating about ObamaCare you did not know this before now?

The only minor issue there, is that it doesn't work.

MassHealth tried this, and they have the highest insurance premiums in the country.

Nice theory, but it simply does not work. Intentions don't matter. Results do. The results in this case, are higher prices, and poor care.

 

[Andylusion]

Where do you come up with this 50% shit?

How Insurance Treats Your Physician

Reimbursement is how your physician gets paid by insurance. Some is paid by the patient, but most is paid by private insurance or programs like Medicare. But there is alot that we as patients don't know about the system of paying physicians and other practitioners or facilities.

Although Medicare was never meant to be used as a guide for private health insurance physician payment schedules, insurance companies and health plans have based their rates of payment on Medicare. No matter how much we pay for private insurance, their payment to physicians is either slightly above Medicare rates (for better insurance companies) or BELOW Medicare rates. It is not uncommon for some insurance companies to pay 10-20% LESS than Medicare.

I just posted the link. If you couldn't figure it out, that's what the link was there for.

The Mayo Clinic, the clinic that Obama said was a model for health care, said that Medicare was only paying out 50% of the cost of treatment.

The Mayo Clinic canceled Medicare and Medicaid because of this.

Nothing you say, contradicts that.

Now as far as private insurance companies paying less..... That's not what the hospitals are reporting.

I know of no example where hospitals have indicated that they do not lose money on Medicare and Medicaid. And the evidence is clear that the more they lose, the more is shifted to private insurance in higher costs.

1. I did not accuse our doctors of being greedy.
2. But that said, I have never known a doctor not to make a very good living.
3. It was I who said, "doctors here accept medicare." Gladly!

Quote:

Of course our medical providers in my area aren't so greedy as those in some other areas.

Implication.... other medical providers are greedy.

Well of course you don't know a doctor not to make a good living. Those that don't, quit. If they can't make a living off of Medicare, they cancel Medicare, like the Mayo Clinic did.

Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients

CMS – which has never before released Medicare opt-out figures – reports that 9,539 physicians opted out of the Medicare program in 2012. That is up from 3,700 physicians opting out in 2009. All in all, the number of doctors who opted out of Medicare in 2012 nearly tripled from just three years prior.

That's how doctors earn a good living. They refuse insurance that doesn't pay, such as Medicare.

 

[dnsmith35]

I just posted the link. If you couldn't figure it out, that's what the link was there for.

The Mayo Clinic, the clinic that Obama said was a model for health care, said that Medicare was only paying out 50% of the cost of treatment.

The Mayo Clinic canceled Medicare and Medicaid because of this.

Nothing you say, contradicts that.

Now as far as private insurance companies paying less..... That's not what the hospitals are reporting.

I know of no example where hospitals have indicated that they do not lose money on Medicare and Medicaid. And the evidence is clear that the more they lose, the more is shifted to private insurance in higher costs.

1. I did not accuse our doctors of being greedy.
2. But that said, I have never known a doctor not to make a very good living.
3. It was I who said, "doctors here accept medicare." Gladly!

Quote:

Of course our medical providers in my area aren't so greedy as those in some other areas.

Implication.... other medical providers are greedy.

Well of course you don't know a doctor not to make a good living. Those that don't, quit. If they can't make a living off of Medicare, they cancel Medicare, like the Mayo Clinic did.

Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients

CMS – which has never before released Medicare opt-out figures – reports that 9,539 physicians opted out of the Medicare program in 2012. That is up from 3,700 physicians opting out in 2009. All in all, the number of doctors who opted out of Medicare in 2012 nearly tripled from just three years prior.

That's how doctors earn a good living. They refuse insurance that doesn't pay, such as Medicare.

Yet even the doctors who take medicare make lots of money. Go figure!

 

[The Rabbi]

The young don't have to subsidize me. I paid for my medicare over 45 years. You are doing the same.....unless you are a tax cheat.

Nothing here changes the fact that you suupport involuntary servitude.

Yet nothing about it is unfair. Actually what is wrong and unfair is to choose not to be covered and expect society to take care of you in an emergency.

Who does that? People file bankruptcy if they go uncovered and incur extraordinary expenses. That isnt expecting society to take care of them.
It's nonsense. A canard.

 

[Andylusion]

1. I did not accuse our doctors of being greedy.
2. But that said, I have never known a doctor not to make a very good living.
3. It was I who said, "doctors here accept medicare." Gladly!

Quote:



Implication.... other medical providers are greedy.

Well of course you don't know a doctor not to make a good living. Those that don't, quit. If they can't make a living off of Medicare, they cancel Medicare, like the Mayo Clinic did.

Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients

CMS – which has never before released Medicare opt-out figures – reports that 9,539 physicians opted out of the Medicare program in 2012. That is up from 3,700 physicians opting out in 2009. All in all, the number of doctors who opted out of Medicare in 2012 nearly tripled from just three years prior.

That's how doctors earn a good living. They refuse insurance that doesn't pay, such as Medicare.

Yet even the doctors who take medicare make lots of money. Go figure!

We just covered this. Because the ones that don't make lots of money....... stop taking Medicare. Thus the only ones left are the ones that do.

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high

See? You have a doctor who already has several Medicare patients. But because of low payouts, they refuse to accept any new patients.

Why? So they can make money. Thus the doctor by limiting losses due to medicare, is still making a good living, but still has a few medicare patients they had from before when the payout was good.

And here's the other side...

The loss of money from Medicare differs greatly from place to place. Why?

In a free market system, prices would go up and down depending on supply of service, and the demand, and the cost of services, and other economic factors.

In socialized system, there is no free-market feed back of supply and demand, with other economic elements factored in.

Instead, the socialized system is governed by a complex calculation, administered by the government.

Physician Fee Schedule - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

If you look it up here, the formula is listed as:

2012 Non-Facility Pricing Amount =
[(Work RVU * Work GPCI) +
(Transitioned Non-Facility PE RVU * PE GPCI) +
(MP RVU * MP GPCI)] * Conversion Factor (CF)

2012 Facility Pricing Amount =
[(Work RVU * Work GPCI) +
(Transitioned Facility PE RVU * PE GPCI) +
(MP RVU * MP GPCI)] * CF

The conversion factor for CY 2012 is $34.0376.​

But if you go through some of the PDF, you'll find there are exceptions to even those calculations.

What my point?

This complex formulaic system, simply does not account for all economic factors.

As a result, Medicare in say a rural setting, where the cost of living is very low, tends to (not always) have a very good payout verses the low cost of living.

Alternatively, in places of extremely high costs of living, the pay out tends to be relatively low.

Thus you can have two doctors taking medicare patients in differing circumstances, and end up with one earning a good living, and the other canceling Medicare because they are going broke.

This is one of the reasons that you tend to see medicare being dropped primarily in states with high costs of living, like California, New Jersey, NY, and Alaska.

 

[Andylusion]

The young don't have to subsidize me. I paid for my medicare over 45 years. You are doing the same.....unless you are a tax cheat.

Nothing here changes the fact that you suupport involuntary servitude.

Yet nothing about it is unfair. Actually what is wrong and unfair is to choose not to be covered and expect society to take care of you in an emergency.

Very few do this. Most get a bill. The only people who actually have their entire health care expense dropped on the public, are those who simply can't pay.

The problem there is, these are the same people that under the Obama Care plan, will be subsidized by the government ANYWAY.

So we end up paying for it regardless.

The only difference between the prior plan, and the new plan, is that vastly more people will be subsidized than before.

See, I went to the hospital without insurance. It was amazing... I got this thing in the mail called a "Bill". I then started paying the "bill". After a year... I paid the "bill" off.

I didn't cost you anything, and I didn't have insurance.

Under the Obama Plan, you get to pay for my health care. Isn't that nice of you?

 

[dnsmith35]

Nothing here changes the fact that you suupport involuntary servitude.

Yet nothing about it is unfair. Actually what is wrong and unfair is to choose not to be covered and expect society to take care of you in an emergency.

Very few do this. Most get a bill. The only people who actually have their entire health care expense dropped on the public, are those who simply can't pay.

There is a big difference between getting a bill and paying it. ER fraud is rampant.

The problem there is, these are the same people that under the Obama Care plan, will be subsidized by the government ANYWAY.

So we end up paying for it regardless.

The only difference between the prior plan, and the new plan, is that vastly more people will be subsidized than before.

See, I went to the hospital without insurance. It was amazing... I got this thing in the mail called a "Bill". I then started paying the "bill". After a year... I paid the "bill" off.

I didn't cost you anything, and I didn't have insurance.

Under the Obama Plan, you get to pay for my health care. Isn't that nice of you?

I don't like the Obama plan, I would prefer the government just cover the uninsured and bill their employers if the employer is adequately profitable. It is selfish and simply not fair or just for anyone to intentionally not cover themselves by insurance.

 

[Bfgrn]

What do you know about the American Medical Association/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee, or RUC and how DOCTORS decide Medicare reimbursement?

I am aware of how this effective Union for health care practitioners has helped to increase cost. That is exactly the reason why we need to move back toward a free market system of competition. Unions when faced with competition, end up ruining themselves and going into irrelevance.

I assume you already know about how the AMA applied pressure on government to restrict medical schools, intentionally to inhibit new doctors in the field, thus increasing price?

How Much do Hospitals Cost Shift? A Review of the Evidence

Abstract:
Context: Hospital cost shifting - that private payers are charged more in response to shortfalls in public payments - has long played a role in debate over health care policy.

Findings: Analyses and commentary based on descriptive, industry-wide hospital payment-to-cost margins by payer provides a false impression that cost shifting is a large and pervasive phenomenon. More careful theoretical and empirical examinations suggest that cost shifting can and has occurred, but usually at a relatively low rate. Margin changes are also strongly influenced by the evolution of hospital and health plan market structures and changes in underlying costs.

Isn't it interesting how just changing the focus, seems to call into question the entire premise?

It "HAS OCCURRED".... PERIOD. IT *HAS* OCCURRED. PERIOD.

Your own link.... the very link you posted on this forum, make it absolutely, undeniably clear, that cost shifting HAS OCCURRED.... PERIOD.

The only question is to the degree. Which honestly, just look at evidence they used....

"More careful theoretical (?!?) and empirical examinations..."

Theoretical.... oh yes, and empirical!.... examinations.... Theory? Part of their 'evidence' that cost shifting is fairly um... you know minor and unimportant..... is based on 'theoretical'.... examinations. AND some empirical stuff too.

Now this is great, because I actually downloaded the whole report, and started reading..... then laughing.....

Do you have any idea where this graph that I posted several days ago, came from? It's from YOUR LINK. LOL

The graph clearly showing and proving that cost shifting HAS OCCURRED, came from the very report that you yourself, just posted a link too.

How poetic is that. The more arrogant people act on here, the faster they shove their own foot into their mouth.

So I kept reading.... and laugh again, when I got to page 15.

If this isn't hilarious, I don't know what is.

The claim "hospitals are out to maximize profits".... therefore prices are already as high as they can be. Thus, they can't possibly cost shift from under paying Medicare to Private payers, because their prices are already maxed out.

The only reason why anyone can't increase their prices, is because of competition. The less competition, and the more regulated the competition, the higher the prices can go, but it's still limited. Eventually people will go to a different hospital.

The theory that a hospital can't raise prices to cost shift, is based on that idea.

But there is a fundamental flaw this paper doesn't cover. That argument would be true..... if other hospitals didn't raise their prices.

But Medicare effects ALL hospitals. So ALL hospitals would raise their price together.

It's the same thing as the minimum wage. Yeah, if the minimum wage only effected McDonald's, they would not have been able to increase costs, because Burger King and Wendy's would have slaughtered them.

But since it effect all of them, prices have increased by 50% to 75% after the minimum wage went from $5.25 to $7.25.

Price Increases at Fast Food Restaurants from 2002 to 2013

This guy did a simple before and after comparison of Wendy's Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, from 2002 to 2012.

Same thing with Hospitals. If you increase costs, through Medicare and Medicaid losses.... those losses are going to effect all hospitals, and thus the "theoretical evidence" that suggests they can't increase costs, is idiotic.

This report you linked to is a joke. All the rest of their arguments are the same. Lots of theory, let's of claims, zero empirical evidence. The graph, that clearly shows cost shift, *IS* the empirical evidence.

And BTW, I also had to laugh when they concluded that Medicare paying only 90% of the cost of treatment can't possibly be to blame for private care charged 25% over. Dur.... the people who wrote this report, not even look at their own published graph? Um.... Medicaid? Which pays even less than Medicare? Ya think that might make up a significant portion of that rest?

Of course I highly doubt you read any of this report you linked too. So typical.

Hey Einstein, you STILL haven't gotten to 50%... even the chart that you claim is PROOF doesn't show a 50% difference at any point. If you had actually READ the study, you would know that chart is from a previous study.

But lets take a look at REAL payments.

Reimbursement rates

Blood tests:

Comprehensive metabolic panel: A blood test that assesses liver and kidney function as well as electrolytes

Hospital charge: $179 Private insurance: $15 Medicare: $15

Lipid Panel: A blood test that checks total cholesterol and breaks it down to good and bad components.

Hospital charge: $68 Private insurance: $19 Medicare: $19

Complete Blood Count: A blood test that checks your hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood counts.

Hospital charge: $51 Private insurance: $11 Medicare: $11

Urine Analysis: Looks for blood, signs of infection or protein in your urine.

Hospital charge: $92 Private insurance: $5 Medicare: $4

Hemoglobin A1C: A single blood test that checks your average blood sugar for the last 3 months.

Hospital charge: $61 Private insurance: $14 Medicare: $13

Thyroid Stimulating Hormone: A blood test that evaluates your thyroid function.

Hospital charge: $108 Private insurance: $24 Medicare: $23

Prothrombin Time: A blood test to check Coumadin level and your blood’s ability to clot

Hospital charge: $36 Private insurance: $6 Medicare: $6

PSA: A blood test that helps to check for prostate cancer.

Hospital charge: $117 Private insurance: $26 Medicare: $22

HIV: Tests for HIV (obviously).

Hospital charge: $92 Private insurance: $20 Medicare: $19

Cardiology:

EKG: A screening test for abnormal heart rhythms and other signs of heart disease.

Hospital charge: $367 Private insurance: $26 Medicare: $26

Echocardiogram: An ultrasound of the heart to look at valves and assess function.

Hospital charge: $4,361 Private insurance: $317 Medicare: $291

Exercise Stress Test: This test is good for evaluating chest pain to see if your heart is the cause.

Hospital charge: $1,182 Private insurance: $123 Medicare: $123

Radiology: (Price includes fee for Radiologist)

Chest X-Ray: To check for lung disease and some forms of heart disease.

Hospital charge: $375 Private insurance: $42 Medicare: $41

Mammogram: Screening test for breast cancer

Hospital charge: $336 Private insurance: $191 Medicare: $146

Ultrasound of the Abdomen: Can assess Kidneys, Liver, Gall Bladder and other organs.

Hospital charge: $1,440 Private insurance: $184 Medicare: $181

Ultrasound of the Pelvis: Images the Uterus and Ovaries

Hospital charge: $1,106 Private insurance: $170 Medicare: $169

CT of Head: Often used to look for lesions in the Brain.

Hospital charge: $2,621 Private insurance: $344 Medicare: $269

CT of Chest with IV Contrast: Can accurately evaluate lung disease and other problem in the chest.

Hospital charge: $5,295 Private insurance: $431 Medicare: $426

CT of Abdomen with IV Contrast: Accurately images the abdomen for tumors or other disease

Hospital charge: $5,680 Private insurance: $463 Medicare: $458

CT of Pelvis with IV Contrast: Often done at the same time as the abdominal CT.

Hospital charge: $5,030 Private insurance: $408 Medicare: $403

MRI of the Brain: A more accurate way to image the brain than a CT scan but it’s more expensive and can’t be done as quickly or easily.

Hospital charge: $3,422 Private insurance: $578 Medicare: $654

MRI of the Cervical Spine: Accurately images the neck

Hospital charge: $3,041 Private insurance: $584 Medicare: $587

MRI of the Thoracic Spine: Accurately images the upper back

Hospital charge: $3,422 Private insurance: $584 Medicare: $596

MRI of the Lumbar Spine: Accurately images the lower back.

Hospital charge: $3,535 Private insurance: $577 Medicare: $588

Procedures: (Usually these procedures are done in an office not a hospital. The amount billed varies substantially for different medical groups but it usually ranges from $1,000 to $8,000 for each).

Colonoscopy, Diagnostic: A screening test for colon cancer where the entire colon is examined through a fiber optic tube.

Private insurance: $504 Medicare: $464

Colonoscopy with Biopsy: If a lesion is found on screening colonoscopy a biopsy is needed.

Private insurance: $603 Medicare: $555

Upper endoscopy with Biopsy: Evaluates problems in the esophagus and stomach, again through a fiber optic tube.

Private insurance: $447 Medicare: $410

 

[Bfgrn]

It's pretty easy to just claim that others are greedy. That's fine.... but not true.

Have you ever worked in a doctors office? Have you ever seen the cost of running a general practice? Likely not.

I don't know what you did for a living, but if the cost of doing your job continued to climb, until you were not making the living you got the job to get, would you keep doing it?

Chances are you would not. Is that because you are greedy? Likely not.

If you got a 4-year degree in accounting, to earn a $60,000 income, and 10 years later you were earning $30,000, would you continue to work there?

No you would not.

Here's the bottom line. Medicare, and Medicaid, both do not pay out enough money to cover the cost of treatment. The payouts are low.

Doctors don't work for a middle income wage. Nor should they.

Remember Obama going to the Mayo Clinic? One of the leading clinics in the whole country? Remember that? Remember how he said Mayo was a model of health care?

Mayo Clinic Makes Medicare, Medicaid Cuts | Heartlander Magazine



The Mayo Clinic that Obama praised, canceled Medicare and Medicaid.

Why? Because Medicare and Medicaid was only paying out 50% of the costs in treatment they were providing. So no more Medicare and Medicaid.

If you want the best health care in the US today, at the Mayo Clinic, Medicare and Medicaid patients need not apply. Show up with cash, or private insurance. No Medicare and Medicaid.

Now if you want to say they are greedy for not losing money, fine.... but if *YOU* were the one not getting paid, you wouldn't do it either. Welcome to reality.

Where do you come up with this 50% shit?

How Insurance Treats Your Physician

Reimbursement is how your physician gets paid by insurance. Some is paid by the patient, but most is paid by private insurance or programs like Medicare. But there is alot that we as patients don't know about the system of paying physicians and other practitioners or facilities.

Although Medicare was never meant to be used as a guide for private health insurance physician payment schedules, insurance companies and health plans have based their rates of payment on Medicare. No matter how much we pay for private insurance, their payment to physicians is either slightly above Medicare rates (for better insurance companies) or BELOW Medicare rates. It is not uncommon for some insurance companies to pay 10-20% LESS than Medicare.

I just posted the link. If you couldn't figure it out, that's what the link was there for.

The Mayo Clinic, the clinic that Obama said was a model for health care, said that Medicare was only paying out 50% of the cost of treatment.

The Mayo Clinic canceled Medicare and Medicaid because of this.

Nothing you say, contradicts that.

Now as far as private insurance companies paying less..... That's not what the hospitals are reporting.

I know of no example where hospitals have indicated that they do not lose money on Medicare and Medicaid. And the evidence is clear that the more they lose, the more is shifted to private insurance in higher costs.

Heartland Institute, now AHIP?

You truly are a parrot for lobbyists and front groups...WHY are you right wing turds so ******* stupid?

Here is a guy who spent 20 years as an executive in the wealthcare cartel network...

EDUCATE yourself...

The health care industry's campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt

 

[The Rabbi]

Yet nothing about it is unfair. Actually what is wrong and unfair is to choose not to be covered and expect society to take care of you in an emergency.

Very few do this. Most get a bill. The only people who actually have their entire health care expense dropped on the public, are those who simply can't pay.

There is a big difference between getting a bill and paying it. ER fraud is rampant.

The problem there is, these are the same people that under the Obama Care plan, will be subsidized by the government ANYWAY.

So we end up paying for it regardless.

The only difference between the prior plan, and the new plan, is that vastly more people will be subsidized than before.

See, I went to the hospital without insurance. It was amazing... I got this thing in the mail called a "Bill". I then started paying the "bill". After a year... I paid the "bill" off.

I didn't cost you anything, and I didn't have insurance.

Under the Obama Plan, you get to pay for my health care. Isn't that nice of you?

I don't like the Obama plan, I would prefer the government just cover the uninsured and bill their employers if the employer is adequately profitable. It is selfish and simply not fair or just for anyone to intentionally not cover themselves by insurance.

It is unjust to let people make their own decisions? In a totalitarian society, perhaps.

 

[Andylusion]

Nothing here changes the fact that you suupport involuntary servitude.

Yet nothing about it is unfair. Actually what is wrong and unfair is to choose not to be covered and expect society to take care of you in an emergency.

Who does that? People file bankruptcy if they go uncovered and incur extraordinary expenses. That isnt expecting society to take care of them.
It's nonsense. A canard.

And actually even that isn't true. I've gone to the hospital without insurance, and I got a bill.... and I paid the bill. Now obviously I couldn't pay it all at once, because the bill was large, and my income small. But I paid as much as I could every month, until I paid it off.

Hospitals rarely push people into bankruptcy on their own. In theory, the hospital I went to, could have forced me into bankruptcy on day one. But instead, they just collected whatever I could afford to pay. Most do.

If you go and look at the research into "medical bankruptcy", the entire things is laughable. It's one more example of dumb leftist, mindlessly finding a report that supports what they already believe, and running with it, without checking the details.

The report included people who owed only $500 in medical bills. If you owed only $500, and filed bankruptcy, this research considered that a "Medical Bankruptcy".

Oh bull crap. No one files bankruptcy over $500, and the Hospital would never even bother to file a court claim for a mere $500. They would end up paying the lawyer more than the amount of the claim! Ridiculous!

But of course the mindless left, never bothered to even read the report.

Additionally, the report never bothered to even check the amount of debt the individuals had on other things. So an individual could have a foreclosure of $100,000, several cars debts of $100,000, and owe $50,000 on credit cards.... and have a dentist bill of $500 for braces... and this idiotic report would call that a "Medical Bankruptcy".

Bull crap. That was a credit card, auto, foreclosure bankruptcy. If those debts had not been there, there would never have been a bankruptcy.

But of course the mindless left, never bothered to even read the report.

And lastly.... the report even included bankruptcy for people who lost income. When I read this, I just burst out laughing. This is exactly why in High School, when I grew a brain, I stopped being a leftist. You can't be smart and still be a leftist.

What they did was, if a person lost their job, or was unable to work due to illness.... and the loss of that income caused them to file bankruptcy.... they concluded that this was a "medical bankruptcy"..... EVEN IF.... they had no debt, no bills, and no direct cost due to health care.

In other words... if they had insurance, and it covered 100% of health care costs.... yet they still filed bankruptcy.... that's a "Medical Bankruptcy".

DUR!..... Really..... and how would having a government run health care system change that? Would they magically not miss work, because the illness would magically know we have gov-care, and thus not cause them to miss work?

A bankruptcy, that did not include a single dollar of health care expenses.... can still be a "medical bankruptcy" in leftard land?

Really....

 

[The Rabbi]

My wife is a bankruptcy trustee's assistant. She sees a fair amount of medical debt in bankruptcies. But you're right: the majority of uninsured medical bills are probably paid off over time.

 

[Andylusion]

Where do you come up with this 50% shit?

How Insurance Treats Your Physician

Reimbursement is how your physician gets paid by insurance. Some is paid by the patient, but most is paid by private insurance or programs like Medicare. But there is alot that we as patients don't know about the system of paying physicians and other practitioners or facilities.

Although Medicare was never meant to be used as a guide for private health insurance physician payment schedules, insurance companies and health plans have based their rates of payment on Medicare. No matter how much we pay for private insurance, their payment to physicians is either slightly above Medicare rates (for better insurance companies) or BELOW Medicare rates. It is not uncommon for some insurance companies to pay 10-20% LESS than Medicare.

I just posted the link. If you couldn't figure it out, that's what the link was there for.

The Mayo Clinic, the clinic that Obama said was a model for health care, said that Medicare was only paying out 50% of the cost of treatment.

The Mayo Clinic canceled Medicare and Medicaid because of this.

Nothing you say, contradicts that.

Now as far as private insurance companies paying less..... That's not what the hospitals are reporting.

I know of no example where hospitals have indicated that they do not lose money on Medicare and Medicaid. And the evidence is clear that the more they lose, the more is shifted to private insurance in higher costs.

Heartland Institute, now AHIP?

If you can actually prove problems with the data they collected, do so.

You truly are a parrot for lobbyists and front groups...WHY are you right wing turds so ******* stupid?

When people who have proven themselves ignorant of the links they themselves posts, call you ignorant.... you know you are on the right track.

Here is a guy who spent 20 years as an executive in the wealthcare cartel network...

EDUCATE yourself...

The health care industry's campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt

This picture... came from *YOUR* link.
http://www.ethicalhealthpartnerships.org/reimbursepictures.html

It clearly shows that Medicare payouts have dropped, relative to the cost of living, and note.... that's just the generic cost of living, not the increases in the cost of running a medical practice, such as the cost of malpractice insurance, which you see there going up.

When you are so undeniably ignorant, that you can post a link, proving MY POINT, and yet be so immature, that you can't admit your own mistake, to the point that you are now trying to post another link to try and contradict what you yourself just posted..................

Grow up. Be adult for once in your life. You are making yourself out like a clown. You are becoming a joke.

 

[Andylusion]

Yet nothing about it is unfair. Actually what is wrong and unfair is to choose not to be covered and expect society to take care of you in an emergency.

Very few do this. Most get a bill. The only people who actually have their entire health care expense dropped on the public, are those who simply can't pay.

There is a big difference between getting a bill and paying it. ER fraud is rampant.

Fraud can happen under any system. Further, I would much rather have the hospital determine whether or not they can absorb the cost. If not, they can garnish wages. I'd much rather have that, then just having the tax payers foot the bill.

Nearly any system, but a universal system, would be preferable.

I don't like the Obama plan, I would prefer the government just cover the uninsured and bill their employers if the employer is adequately profitable. It is selfish and simply not fair or just for anyone to intentionally not cover themselves by insurance.

Understand you are saying you want tax payers, to fund wealthy people.

25% of the uninsured live in households with $60K income or higher. Only 38% live in households at the poverty level.

So there are a ton of people who could easily afford health care, and are choosing to not have it.

Second, there is nothing selfish about choosing to not have health insurance.

The only reason it is "selfish" is if society picks up the tab. But whose fault is that?

If you have a drunk brother-in-law, and he asks you for money.... and you give him the money and he gets drunk.... whose fault is that? His fault for asking? Or your fault for choosing to give money to a drunk?

Is there something inherently evil in asking for money? No. It's your fault for giving the money.

Someone who chooses to not have health insurance, is not doing anything wrong. You choosing to vote people into office who give money to people who make choices, is who is doing something dumb.

See my problem is, the leftists in all countries setup a system where government gives them money for something, and then based on that 'cost to society', they then believe they have the right to dictate all aspects of life.

It's exactly because of this that New York thinks they should ban all large drinks. Government subsidizes health care. Ok people who drink too much increase our health care costs. Now let's ban big drinks. And let's ban headphones because people could get hit by a car, and that would cost society money.

Once you start handing out money, you have the right to be all up in everyone's business. Thus once you vote for a politician to give out money for whatever, you have at the same time voted for politicians to dictate your life.

As for forcing employers to pick up the bill... that's crazy. First off, that would encourage employers to lay off anyone that needed health care.

Second, why should employers pick up the tab? Most already provide health insurance. Why should an employer be on the hook, when an employee chooses to not buy the insurance they provide?

Lastly, this would absolutely drive out jobs.

 

[dnsmith35]

Which healthcare programs in the US have the highest patient satisfaction? The government ones.

VA Posts Annual Medical Quality Report Quality of Care Better than Private-Sector Health Plans

Medicare Beats Private Plans for Patient Satisfaction: Survey

So, yes, I do want the government to "take over healthcare" and give us our Public Option if we can't have single payer. Just put Medicare on the exchanges for ANYONE to purchase...problem solved.

That's nice. Now go **** yourself.
Because gov't programs have high levels of incompetence and lack of accountability. You want your healthcare overseen by someone who can't be fired, go right ahead. The rest of us understand the free market is what accounts for innovation and advances in medicine.

The VA medical system is viewed by the experts as the best overall medical system in the country. The rest of our society would do well to have a system like the VA.

BTW, the federal government does not oversee Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government hires civilian contractors to monitor Medicare and the States run Medicaid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which healthcare programs in the US have the highest patient satisfaction? The government ones.

VA Posts Annual Medical Quality Report Quality of Care Better than Private-Sector Health Plans

Medicare Beats Private Plans for Patient Satisfaction: Survey

So, yes, I do want the government to "take over healthcare" and give us our Public Option if we can't have single payer. Just put Medicare on the exchanges for ANYONE to purchase...problem solved.

That's nice. Now go **** yourself.
Because gov't programs have high levels of incompetence and lack of accountability. You want your healthcare overseen by someone who can't be fired, go right ahead. The rest of us understand the free market is what accounts for innovation and advances in medicine.

The VA medical system is viewed by the experts as the best overall medical system in the country. The rest of our society would do well to have a system like the VA.

BTW, the federal government does not oversee Medicare and Medicaid. The federal government hires civilian contractors to monitor Medicare and the States run Medicaid.

What?
Health care costs for vets to soar, report says | Army Times | armytimes.com

 

[RKMBrown]

I just posted the link. If you couldn't figure it out, that's what the link was there for.

The Mayo Clinic, the clinic that Obama said was a model for health care, said that Medicare was only paying out 50% of the cost of treatment.

The Mayo Clinic canceled Medicare and Medicaid because of this.

Nothing you say, contradicts that.

Now as far as private insurance companies paying less..... That's not what the hospitals are reporting.

I know of no example where hospitals have indicated that they do not lose money on Medicare and Medicaid. And the evidence is clear that the more they lose, the more is shifted to private insurance in higher costs.

Heartland Institute, now AHIP?

If you can actually prove problems with the data they collected, do so.

You truly are a parrot for lobbyists and front groups...WHY are you right wing turds so ******* stupid?

When people who have proven themselves ignorant of the links they themselves posts, call you ignorant.... you know you are on the right track.

Here is a guy who spent 20 years as an executive in the wealthcare cartel network...

EDUCATE yourself...

The health care industry's campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt

This picture... came from *YOUR* link.
Medical Malpractice Articles

It clearly shows that Medicare payouts have dropped, relative to the cost of living, and note.... that's just the generic cost of living, not the increases in the cost of running a medical practice, such as the cost of malpractice insurance, which you see there going up.

When you are so undeniably ignorant, that you can post a link, proving MY POINT, and yet be so immature, that you can't admit your own mistake, to the point that you are now trying to post another link to try and contradict what you yourself just posted..................

Grow up. Be adult for once in your life. You are making yourself out like a clown. You are becoming a joke.

Minor point. BFGN has always been a joke. This is not a new thing for him.

 

[Bfgrn]

I just posted the link. If you couldn't figure it out, that's what the link was there for.

The Mayo Clinic, the clinic that Obama said was a model for health care, said that Medicare was only paying out 50% of the cost of treatment.

The Mayo Clinic canceled Medicare and Medicaid because of this.

Nothing you say, contradicts that.

Now as far as private insurance companies paying less..... That's not what the hospitals are reporting.

I know of no example where hospitals have indicated that they do not lose money on Medicare and Medicaid. And the evidence is clear that the more they lose, the more is shifted to private insurance in higher costs.

Heartland Institute, now AHIP?

If you can actually prove problems with the data they collected, do so.

You truly are a parrot for lobbyists and front groups...WHY are you right wing turds so ******* stupid?

When people who have proven themselves ignorant of the links they themselves posts, call you ignorant.... you know you are on the right track.

Here is a guy who spent 20 years as an executive in the wealthcare cartel network...

EDUCATE yourself...

The health care industry's campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt

This picture... came from *YOUR* link.
Medical Malpractice Articles

It clearly shows that Medicare payouts have dropped, relative to the cost of living, and note.... that's just the generic cost of living, not the increases in the cost of running a medical practice, such as the cost of malpractice insurance, which you see there going up.

When you are so undeniably ignorant, that you can post a link, proving MY POINT, and yet be so immature, that you can't admit your own mistake, to the point that you are now trying to post another link to try and contradict what you yourself just posted..................

Grow up. Be adult for once in your life. You are making yourself out like a clown. You are becoming a joke.

Funny, you STILL haven't proven your 50% claim...

Pretty funny, you claim to have read the link I provided. All you did was ignore what the author SAID...and instead relied on lobbyists and front groups who have ZERO concern for your health or mine. They are only concerned with protecting their profit.

REALLY funny, to argue market forces with a pea brain who doesn't even understand what the crucial elements of a market transaction are, and why health care will NEVER fit a market based model.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are 'things' (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

This is obvious to the rest of the industrialized world and why they have government run healthcare for ALL.


So let's recap...

You are pining for the poor doctors and hospitals. So you want Medicare to pay more. You want to INCREASE health care costs in America...