OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
If something is "free" wouldn't YOU use more of it?
Right to Privacy
- Thread starter FallbrookFarmer
- Start date
- Views: 26092
- Status
If something is "free" wouldn't YOU use more of it?
MikePA
Super Moderator
If you're complaining about an insurance company, actually complaining about anything, you never have to source anything. Again, just like dealer bashing. :confused2:
In all the years I have had health insurance (I have a HDHP with HSA now), I have never had a problem with obtaining care nor getting reimbursed (when I had a plan that did this) and neither has any member of my family. Medical, dental and vision, no problems.
aczlan
Good Morning
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,964
- Tractor
- Kubota L3830GST, B7500HST, BX2660. Formerly: Case 480F LL, David Brown 880UE
Yes. In our case, I find it interesting that the money is being specifically set aside for medical expenses, but the act of spending it makes us think twice before doing it.
Aaron Z
OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
Let me answer your question: "Government or Corporate run, whats the difference?"
1. You don't pay your health care premium to an HMO.
answer:you are cancelled.
2. You don't pay your government sponsored health care.
answer: you pay a fine or go to jail.
Take your pick
keegs
Veteran Member
Mike,
Fortunately my wife and I are both healthy, we try to manage our weight, exercise regularly and eat a healthy diet. So as of yet anyway, I don't have personal experiences to relate about my employer provided healthcare policy. There are complaints among my colleagues at work howerver.
With regard to your HDHP, my understanding is that under the new legislation you can continue to purchase HDHPs provided they meet a requirement that some portion of the premium actually goes to providing you and your family health care services.
I agree that under our for profit system, something has to be done to curb unnecessary treatment. I dont' think howerver that either you or I (assuming you're not an MD) will always be able to make the best medical decisions beyond the aforementioned lifestyle choices.
keegs
Veteran Member
Let me answer your question: "Government or Corporate run, whats the difference?"
1. You don't pay your health care premium to an HMO.
answer:you are cancelled.
2. You don't pay your government sponsored health care.
answer: you pay a fine or go to jail.
Take your pick
GB, the inforcement provisions of the legislation are almost insignificant. It's fantacy to suggest otherwise.
And with regard to your government run healthcare policy, one would think that relying on what you know rather what you believe would be a more rational approach to evaluating it.
OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
I guess we'll rely on your opinion then, No sources ?
dave1949
Super Star Member
FallbrookFarmer,
It was just too nice out today. Got into the upper 70*'s and it's 69* at 6:30pm - that's summer weather here. Changed my snow to summer tires and took the chains off the tractor. If the E. Coast gets hit with a Spring blizzard, it will be my fault.
Here is an interesting link on the causes of health care expense:
Rising Health Care Costs in America Stanford Center for Law & the Biosciences Blog
I'll bet the books would make good skim reading.
I agree that one of biggest problems is the lack of a 'market' in the true sense. I have no idea why insurance companies are constrained from competing across some state lines. We pay high insurance rates in Maine and our health-associated spending is high as a percentage of state GSP.
Our US economy is pretty good at discovering and 'exploiting' - for lack of a better term, markets. If it were easy to have a 'natural' health care market, I believe it would already exist. These are the factors which I believe limit a natural market for health care:
We don't purchase doctor services as a commodity. We get our care from one or a small group of doctors sharing a practice. It may be impractical (scary?) to purchase physician services like we purchase gasoline.
Unless one lives in a large metro area, and perhaps not even then, we don't have a choice of hospitals based upon price. We go to the hospital that exists, or the one our doctor has privileges at. For small cities, some serious cases are routinely medicoptered to a large city. It happens all the time here in Maine, the patient is sent to Boston.
When a medical professional proposes a treatment, we lack the knowledge to value the proposal - we are buying pig-in-a-poke style hoping for the best and often price plays no role.
Hospitals seem to not be very profitable. One corners a local market and seldom gets competition from a new hospital. There are more and more routine care clinics, we need many more. Walmart is working on it.
Insurance companies run under policies based on their own profitability, naturally. Since they pass on all actual medical costs, containment of medical costs does not determine if they live or die as a company. HMO's were touted in the beginning to do that, I don't think it worked out that way.
There are not enough doctors, dentists and especially not enough Physician Assistants. The supply is chronically behind the demand. Doctors are not incented to be Primary Care Physicians. The cost of post-secondary education and medical school is a formidable hurdle. I think one has to be reasonably smart too.
The growth of technology in medicine has been explosive and expensive. Do you remember Buster Brown Shoe stores where you could put your feet in the X-ray machine and see your foot bones? This is circa 1955.
When medicare was implemented in the 1940's, what could a doctor really do for a patient? Penicillin, amputation, hernia, caesarean birth, hysterectomy and appendix surgery seems like the high points. I'm not a medical historian, but it seems care was pretty basic by comparison to now. For the part of health care funded by medicare, medical care in the original program and what developed over the years are on two different planets considering the growth in quantity and breadth of treatment. There is an historical basis for this that has little to do with freebies. Do we think FDR had a crystal ball telling him one chemo treatment would cost $3000 in 1997? What's a chemo treatment? would be his response.
Tort reform would help, but nobody can say how much. If the AMA had the powers over their own profession as does the ABA, many torts would be avoided. I find it hard to believe the medical community does not know who it's most dangerous or unskilled members are. Too often, they take up practice somewhere else after getting a bad reputation.
52% of the $2.3 trillion spent on health care nationally in 2008 went to hospitals and physicians/clinics:
U.S. Health Care Costs: Background Brief
The $2.3 trillion is three times the amount spent in 1990, and eight times the amount spent in 1980.
The costs have been growing like weeds and not a lot has been done to control them for 50 years now. It's time to get serious about costs, or be willing to bear them.
Dave.
It was just too nice out today. Got into the upper 70*'s and it's 69* at 6:30pm - that's summer weather here. Changed my snow to summer tires and took the chains off the tractor. If the E. Coast gets hit with a Spring blizzard, it will be my fault.
Here is an interesting link on the causes of health care expense:
Rising Health Care Costs in America Stanford Center for Law & the Biosciences Blog
I'll bet the books would make good skim reading.
I agree that one of biggest problems is the lack of a 'market' in the true sense. I have no idea why insurance companies are constrained from competing across some state lines. We pay high insurance rates in Maine and our health-associated spending is high as a percentage of state GSP.
Our US economy is pretty good at discovering and 'exploiting' - for lack of a better term, markets. If it were easy to have a 'natural' health care market, I believe it would already exist. These are the factors which I believe limit a natural market for health care:
We don't purchase doctor services as a commodity. We get our care from one or a small group of doctors sharing a practice. It may be impractical (scary?) to purchase physician services like we purchase gasoline.
Unless one lives in a large metro area, and perhaps not even then, we don't have a choice of hospitals based upon price. We go to the hospital that exists, or the one our doctor has privileges at. For small cities, some serious cases are routinely medicoptered to a large city. It happens all the time here in Maine, the patient is sent to Boston.
When a medical professional proposes a treatment, we lack the knowledge to value the proposal - we are buying pig-in-a-poke style hoping for the best and often price plays no role.
Hospitals seem to not be very profitable. One corners a local market and seldom gets competition from a new hospital. There are more and more routine care clinics, we need many more. Walmart is working on it.
Insurance companies run under policies based on their own profitability, naturally. Since they pass on all actual medical costs, containment of medical costs does not determine if they live or die as a company. HMO's were touted in the beginning to do that, I don't think it worked out that way.
There are not enough doctors, dentists and especially not enough Physician Assistants. The supply is chronically behind the demand. Doctors are not incented to be Primary Care Physicians. The cost of post-secondary education and medical school is a formidable hurdle. I think one has to be reasonably smart too.
The growth of technology in medicine has been explosive and expensive. Do you remember Buster Brown Shoe stores where you could put your feet in the X-ray machine and see your foot bones?
This is circa 1955. When medicare was implemented in the 1940's, what could a doctor really do for a patient? Penicillin, amputation, hernia, caesarean birth, hysterectomy and appendix surgery seems like the high points. I'm not a medical historian, but it seems care was pretty basic by comparison to now. For the part of health care funded by medicare, medical care in the original program and what developed over the years are on two different planets considering the growth in quantity and breadth of treatment. There is an historical basis for this that has little to do with freebies. Do we think FDR had a crystal ball telling him one chemo treatment would cost $3000 in 1997? What's a chemo treatment? would be his response.
Tort reform would help, but nobody can say how much. If the AMA had the powers over their own profession as does the ABA, many torts would be avoided. I find it hard to believe the medical community does not know who it's most dangerous or unskilled members are. Too often, they take up practice somewhere else after getting a bad reputation.
52% of the $2.3 trillion spent on health care nationally in 2008 went to hospitals and physicians/clinics:
U.S. Health Care Costs: Background Brief
The $2.3 trillion is three times the amount spent in 1990, and eight times the amount spent in 1980.
The costs have been growing like weeds and not a lot has been done to control them for 50 years now. It's time to get serious about costs, or be willing to bear them.
Dave.
OP
FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
Upper 70s Huh! What you think your in Sourthern Calif or something
First thing that jumps out at me in your post is Tort reform.
Drs. have to carry inordinate amounts of malpractice insurance to stay in business. It always bothered me that an atty would get 25-50% of a settlement from an injury. Now there is one place I think we CAN learn from the Brits, Attys are only allowed to charge by the hour, they are barred from sharing a percentage. Think that would be a good change, but I think that has a much chance as a snowball in nether regions.
Again, one of governments legitimate functions is to form a regulatory framework by which business and commerce works, BUT it has to be transparent and stable, I don't think you will disagree that our current tax laws or the new health bill are either.
Going back to your states health care situation, If we both agree that a corporation HAS to make a profit to stay in business, how long will it be before the insurance companies are not allowed to do so, that they will fold or move?
I know you may disagree with the editorial section of the WSJ,but I don't think you can fault them on straight reporting. They said that the raise requested by Anthem was 4.8%, I don't know if that is "fair" or not.
All I can say is the role of a corporation is maximize profits to their shareholders, and a 4.8% raise doesn't seem to be unreasonable IMHO. I think a more accurate measure would be is how profitable the co. is.
So I guess you not using the TULIKIVI now thats its balmy?
First thing that jumps out at me in your post is Tort reform.
Drs. have to carry inordinate amounts of malpractice insurance to stay in business. It always bothered me that an atty would get 25-50% of a settlement from an injury. Now there is one place I think we CAN learn from the Brits, Attys are only allowed to charge by the hour, they are barred from sharing a percentage. Think that would be a good change, but I think that has a much chance as a snowball in nether regions.
Again, one of governments legitimate functions is to form a regulatory framework by which business and commerce works, BUT it has to be transparent and stable, I don't think you will disagree that our current tax laws or the new health bill are either.
Going back to your states health care situation, If we both agree that a corporation HAS to make a profit to stay in business, how long will it be before the insurance companies are not allowed to do so, that they will fold or move?
I know you may disagree with the editorial section of the WSJ,but I don't think you can fault them on straight reporting. They said that the raise requested by Anthem was 4.8%, I don't know if that is "fair" or not.
All I can say is the role of a corporation is maximize profits to their shareholders, and a 4.8% raise doesn't seem to be unreasonable IMHO. I think a more accurate measure would be is how profitable the co. is.
So I guess you not using the TULIKIVI now thats its balmy?
dave1949
Super Star Member
Upper 70s Huh! What you think your in Sourthern Calif or something
First thing that jumps out at me in your post is Tort reform.
Drs. have to carry inordinate amounts of malpractice insurance to stay in business. It always bothered me that an atty would get 25-50% of a settlement from an injury. Now there is one place I think we CAN learn from the Brits, Attys are only allowed to charge by the hour, they are barred from sharing a percentage. Think that would be a good change, but I think that has a much chance as a snowball in nether regions.
Again, one of governments legitimate functions is to form a regulatory framework by which business and commerce works, BUT it has to be transparent and stable, I don't think you will disagree that our current tax laws or the new health bill are either.
Going back to your states health care situation, If we both agree that a corporation HAS to make a profit to stay in business, how long will it be before the insurance companies are not allowed to do so, that they will fold or move?
I know you may disagree with the editorial section of the WSJ,but I don't think you can fault them on straight reporting. They said that the raise requested by Anthem was 4.8%, I don't know if that is "fair" or not.
All I can say is the role of a corporation is maximize profits to their shareholders, and a 4.8% raise doesn't seem to be unreasonable IMHO. I think a more accurate measure would be is how profitable the co. is.
So I guess you not using the TULIKIVI now thats its balmy?
I don't know where the WSJ 4.8% comes from, others see it differently
Check out the history of rate increases, proposed and actual. Read in a few pages and you see how those rates translate to what people pay for insurance and what they receive. People have real cause for anger at insurance companies.
http://speaker.maine.gov/news/PingreeNews/Anthem Investigation Maine Request.pdf
We had a fire in the Tulikivi two nights ago. But it probably won't see much more use this Spring. Rainy or cloudy days mostly.
My wife had a co-worker who is a Navy Vet. He had a problem with his neck that required surgery to correct. He was operated on at Togus, the VA hospital in Maine. It was pure butchery, almost killed him,lost his ability to speak and he was so screwed up on pain meds he couldn't work, lost his job. He finally, over a year after the surgery, got to a specialist in Boston who after examining him actually asked 'Who did this to you?' How can you adequately compensate in such a case? You really cannot. That doctor no longer works at Togus, but he continues to practice. Weed those folks out and tort reform is much easier. It should also eventually lower insururance rates.
Imagine the same scenario for someone who isn't eligible for VA care, although that may be part of the problem. Togus doesn't have a good reputation. I have no idea if that is deserved or not.
Dave.
- Status