Healthcare in America

[Bryan]

First of all the lady I was talking about who had the surgery did not have health insurance. My comment on insurance was about another friend who happens to be a nurse and the health insurance that she has is seriously lacking.

I was aware of that.

I did separate the comment in response to the one thing from the response to the other, it seems to me.

    Secondly is is well known that patients without health insurance are charged considerably more than those with health insurance. That's a rip off right out of the gate. Don't go off on any mile long tirade about how that's ok because insurance companies make deals with hospitals. I know the reasons and it still doesn't make it right.

The problem is that you are overgeneralizing.

It is illegal for medical providers to charge private pay patients less than what they charge insurance (though they're allowed to write off unpaid bills--which they must frequently do). It should be easy to figure out why that is.

Who is most likely to pay out of pocket? Rich people can underwrite their own risk. It's foolish for a rich person to purchase insurance unless he knows something the insurance company doesn't know (like he's ill with something so expensive he can't afford to pay for it out-of-pocket).

What does Willam suggest? Charging rich private-pay patients more than what poor private-pay patients are charged?

Is that supposed to be fair?

  You don't begrudge a profit under ordinary circumstances and that's fine, I believe my whole point was my outrage of astronomical profit for what where in fact "ordinary circumstances".

Despite a construction boom not seen in 50 years, hospitals reported an average 5.2 percent profit margin in 2004--the highest in six years--and 2005 margins are expected to be even higher, USA Today reported. According to the American Hospital Association, 25 percent of hospitals are in the red, down from about one-third in recent years.

http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-soc...e/864653-1.html

If the profits are astronomical, then why is the profit margin so pedestrian?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7...qkCAgl-5m0s7ZrQ

(show long-term average for businesses about 9%)

  Let me wrap my head around this, as long as someone like yourself understands that these huge costs are actually caused by third party payments, insurance companies and lawyers, then simply knowing the reason makes it all ok?

Yeah, basically.

The US has much better healthcare than people commonly believe. It costs more the same reason a lexus costs more, and the rest of it is because of government and legal tinkering.

In a thread a few weeks ago, Paul LaClair expressed his satisfaction over forcing patients to pay for tests they probably do not need except to provide liability protection for doctors. That's you paying more for medical care because lawyers like Paul want to make sure that 1 in 10,000 case doesn't get misdiagnosed. When the next level of diagnostic test is developed they'll sue again to make sure people get test, also, spreading out the risk of another 1 in 10,000 case.

It's a good deal for the 1 in 10,000. The other 9,999, not so much.

On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), it does improve the market for diagnostic tests.

    I too have no problem with a fair profit for goods and services received in a capitalist society. I do have a problem with the unbridled greed that has consumed this country like a cancer. The overwhelming number of lobbyist and corporate contributions per lawmaker should be unsettling, even to you.

It's not the lobbyists that bother me so much as the politicians who engage in tit-for-tat deals, like Duke Cunningham (R, Calif.).

There are many interest groups in the United States. Pooling resources to gain a hearing isn't inherently wrong. You and I could form a special interest group tomorrow and hire a lobbyist (albeit not a very good one!). That's not a bad thing.

I glad that your surgery went ok and that you only owed an amount that you were able to payback in a timley fashion. Unfortunately thousands and thousands of people in this, the wealthiest country in the world are not so lucky. Screw'em right?

No, not "screw 'em." Just realize that health care for US nationals isn't necessarily the wisest thing to make priority #1.

If you remove troops from Iraq to save money on surgeries, you're saying "screw 'em" to those Iraqis who are trying to establish a democracy--and many of whom are in need of medical care they couldn't obtain even if they had $40,000.

The free market is the best way to establish heath care priorities, not management by the federal government. You pay for the care you're able to afford (even if it means borrowing). If you're connected to the family or the community, then maybe they'll help you--voluntarily. Joe Smith in Oregon doesn't owe you dialysis treatments. But chances are somebody is willing to help you out voluntarily.

People of limited means really don't deserve the same level of healthcare as those with of us who are better off, right?

Right, same as if I go to the car dealership with $100 and the other guy goes there with $75,000 the other guy is likely to come away with the better car. I have no right to expect the dealership to give me a $60,000 car for $100.

But of course health care is different from car sales. It is morally right, we believe, to assist others who are suffering. I say that it should be primarily up to individuals who receives their charity. Nationalized healthcare enables Person B to decide that person C should be forced to offer charity to person A.

That turns the idea of charity on its head.

Let'em eat cake so to speak.

You'd give the baker as a slave to the hungry man.

Although I find it disturbing that you would equate the access to affordable healthcare to the luxury of owning a Mercedes, you are in fact correct.

A straw man? For me?

You shouldn't have!

The Mercedes comment was in response to your comment about the nurse with lousy health insurance. She wanted to upgrade from an Hyundai Excel (or whatever she's got) to something better.

It wasn't about accessing "affordable" healthcare. The nurse in question was able to afford healthcare, via insurance.

Healthcare in this country is a luxury. It is understandable in a capitalist society to deny those with inferior means an expensive luxury car so it stands to reason that we deny and end to pain and suffering of a fellow human being for the same reasons.

That doesn't follow, since capitalist societies are not necessarily devoid of compassion. Though it would be interesting to see you argue otherwise.

Where your surgery is concerned Bryan, you were lucky. Unfortunately you don't even have the balls to even admit it. Maybe you should walk a mile in someone elses shoes.

Maybe you should have a clue about the large amount of charity work I've done in my time. But I doubt it. Why don't you call me a dick again?

That sir, is why you are a dick.

Wow. What would you call me without the many hours of charity work I've done voluntarily and at my own expense?

I realize that may not be a serious critique by your standards, but I feel it is more than appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you're not smug or anything.

[Stixx3969]

I was aware of that.

I did separate the comment in response to the one thing from the response to the other, it seems to me.

The problem is that you are overgeneralizing.

It is illegal for medical providers to charge private pay patients less than what they charge insurance (though they're allowed to write off unpaid bills--which they must frequently do).  It should be easy to figure out why that is.

Who is most likely to pay out of pocket?  Rich people can underwrite their own risk.  It's foolish for a rich person to purchase insurance unless he knows something the insurance company doesn't know (like he's ill with something so expensive he can't afford to pay for it out-of-pocket).

What does Willam suggest?  Charging rich private-pay patients more than what poor private-pay patients are charged?

Is that supposed to be fair?

Despite a construction boom not seen in 50 years, hospitals reported an average 5.2 percent profit margin in 2004--the highest in six years--and 2005 margins are expected to be even higher, USA Today reported. According to the American Hospital Association, 25 percent of hospitals are in the red, down from about one-third in recent years.

http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-soc...e/864653-1.html

If the profits are astronomical, then why is the profit margin so pedestrian?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7...qkCAgl-5m0s7ZrQ

(show long-term average for businesses about 9%)

Yeah, basically.

The US has much better healthcare than people commonly believe.  It costs more the same reason a lexus costs more, and the rest of it is because of government and legal tinkering.

In a thread a few weeks ago, Paul LaClair expressed his satisfaction over forcing patients to pay for tests they probably do not need except to provide liability protection for doctors.  That's you paying more for medical care because lawyers like Paul want to make sure that 1 in 10,000 case doesn't get misdiagnosed.  When the next level of diagnostic test is developed they'll sue again to make sure people get test, also, spreading out the risk of another 1 in 10,000 case.

It's a good deal for the 1 in 10,000.  The other 9,999, not so much.

On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), it does improve the market for diagnostic tests.

It's not the lobbyists that bother me so much as the politicians who engage in tit-for-tat deals, like Duke Cunningham (R, Calif.).

There are many interest groups in the United States.  Pooling resources to gain a hearing isn't inherently wrong.  You and I could form a special interest group tomorrow and hire a lobbyist (albeit not a very good one!).  That's not a bad thing.

I glad that your surgery went ok and that you only owed an amount that you were able to payback in a timley fashion. Unfortunately thousands and thousands of people in this, the wealthiest country in the world are not so lucky. Screw'em right?

No, not "screw 'em."  Just realize that health care for US nationals isn't necessarily the wisest thing to make priority #1.

If you remove troops from Iraq to save money on surgeries, you're saying "screw 'em" to those Iraqis who are trying to establish a democracy--and many of whom are in need of medical care they couldn't obtain even if they had $40,000.

The free market is the best way to establish heath care priorities, not management by the federal government.  You pay for the care you're able to afford (even if it means borrowing).  If you're connected to the family or the community, then maybe they'll help you--voluntarily.  Joe Smith in Oregon doesn't owe you dialysis treatments.  But chances are somebody is willing to help you out voluntarily.

People of limited means really don't deserve the same level of healthcare as those with of us who are better off, right?

Right, same as if I go to the car dealership with $100 and the other guy goes there with $75,000 the other guy is likely to come away with the better car.  I have no right to expect the dealership to give me a $60,000 car for $100.

But of course health care is different from car sales.  It is morally right, we believe, to assist others who are suffering.  I say that it should be primarily up to individuals who receives their charity.  Nationalized healthcare enables Person B to decide that person C should be forced to offer charity to person A.

That turns the idea of charity on its head.

Let'em eat cake so to speak.

You'd give the baker as a slave to the hungry man.

Although I find it disturbing that you would equate the access to affordable healthcare to the luxury of owning a Mercedes, you are in fact correct.

A straw man?  For me? 

You shouldn't have!

The Mercedes comment was in response to your comment about the nurse with lousy health insurance.  She wanted to upgrade from an Hyundai Excel (or whatever she's got) to something better.

It wasn't about accessing "affordable" healthcare.  The nurse in question was able to afford healthcare, via insurance.

Healthcare in this country is a luxury. It is understandable in a capitalist society to deny those with inferior means an expensive luxury car so it stands to reason that we deny and end to pain and suffering of a fellow human being for the same reasons.

That doesn't follow, since capitalist societies are not necessarily devoid of compassion.  Though it would be interesting to see you argue otherwise.

Where your surgery is concerned Bryan, you were lucky. Unfortunately you don't even have the balls to even admit it. Maybe you should walk a mile in someone elses shoes.

Maybe you should have a clue about the large amount of charity work I've done in my time.  But I doubt it.  Why don't you call me a dick again?

That sir, is why you are a dick.

Wow.  What would you call me without the many hours of charity work I've done voluntarily and at my own expense?

I realize that may not be a serious critique by your standards, but I feel it is more than appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you're not smug or anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I said about my friend the nurse was that she had insurance that didn't cover diddly squat. She couldn't upgrade even if she wanted to because, like most of us she can't afford anymore insurance. Again that was part of my intial point, I just don't have the energy to argue every point with you right now. BTW the way I love the way you worked the war in there, that was classy.

I've been involed in charity work myself (Toys for Tots) but until now I never felt the need to mention it to anyone let alone boast about it on some anonymous message board.

Now that I'm aware of all your charity work I'm sorry for saying that you were just a dick. From now on I shall address thee as "Saint Dick".

[Stixx3969]

I was aware of that.

I did separate the comment in response to the one thing from the response to the other, it seems to me.

The problem is that you are overgeneralizing.

It is illegal for medical providers to charge private pay patients less than what they charge insurance (though they're allowed to write off unpaid bills--which they must frequently do).  It should be easy to figure out why that is.

Who is most likely to pay out of pocket?  Rich people can underwrite their own risk.  It's foolish for a rich person to purchase insurance unless he knows something the insurance company doesn't know (like he's ill with something so expensive he can't afford to pay for it out-of-pocket).

What does Willam suggest?  Charging rich private-pay patients more than what poor private-pay patients are charged?

Is that supposed to be fair?

Despite a construction boom not seen in 50 years, hospitals reported an average 5.2 percent profit margin in 2004--the highest in six years--and 2005 margins are expected to be even higher, USA Today reported. According to the American Hospital Association, 25 percent of hospitals are in the red, down from about one-third in recent years.

http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care-soc...e/864653-1.html

If the profits are astronomical, then why is the profit margin so pedestrian?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7...qkCAgl-5m0s7ZrQ

(show long-term average for businesses about 9%)

Yeah, basically.

The US has much better healthcare than people commonly believe.  It costs more the same reason a lexus costs more, and the rest of it is because of government and legal tinkering.

In a thread a few weeks ago, Paul LaClair expressed his satisfaction over forcing patients to pay for tests they probably do not need except to provide liability protection for doctors.  That's you paying more for medical care because lawyers like Paul want to make sure that 1 in 10,000 case doesn't get misdiagnosed.  When the next level of diagnostic test is developed they'll sue again to make sure people get test, also, spreading out the risk of another 1 in 10,000 case.

It's a good deal for the 1 in 10,000.  The other 9,999, not so much.

On the plus side (depending on how you look at it), it does improve the market for diagnostic tests.

It's not the lobbyists that bother me so much as the politicians who engage in tit-for-tat deals, like Duke Cunningham (R, Calif.).

There are many interest groups in the United States.  Pooling resources to gain a hearing isn't inherently wrong.  You and I could form a special interest group tomorrow and hire a lobbyist (albeit not a very good one!).  That's not a bad thing.

I glad that your surgery went ok and that you only owed an amount that you were able to payback in a timley fashion. Unfortunately thousands and thousands of people in this, the wealthiest country in the world are not so lucky. Screw'em right?

No, not "screw 'em."  Just realize that health care for US nationals isn't necessarily the wisest thing to make priority #1.

If you remove troops from Iraq to save money on surgeries, you're saying "screw 'em" to those Iraqis who are trying to establish a democracy--and many of whom are in need of medical care they couldn't obtain even if they had $40,000.

The free market is the best way to establish heath care priorities, not management by the federal government.  You pay for the care you're able to afford (even if it means borrowing).  If you're connected to the family or the community, then maybe they'll help you--voluntarily.  Joe Smith in Oregon doesn't owe you dialysis treatments.  But chances are somebody is willing to help you out voluntarily.

People of limited means really don't deserve the same level of healthcare as those with of us who are better off, right?

Right, same as if I go to the car dealership with $100 and the other guy goes there with $75,000 the other guy is likely to come away with the better car.  I have no right to expect the dealership to give me a $60,000 car for $100.

But of course health care is different from car sales.  It is morally right, we believe, to assist others who are suffering.  I say that it should be primarily up to individuals who receives their charity.  Nationalized healthcare enables Person B to decide that person C should be forced to offer charity to person A.

That turns the idea of charity on its head.

Let'em eat cake so to speak.

You'd give the baker as a slave to the hungry man.

Although I find it disturbing that you would equate the access to affordable healthcare to the luxury of owning a Mercedes, you are in fact correct.

A straw man?  For me? 

You shouldn't have!

The Mercedes comment was in response to your comment about the nurse with lousy health insurance.  She wanted to upgrade from an Hyundai Excel (or whatever she's got) to something better.

It wasn't about accessing "affordable" healthcare.  The nurse in question was able to afford healthcare, via insurance.

Healthcare in this country is a luxury. It is understandable in a capitalist society to deny those with inferior means an expensive luxury car so it stands to reason that we deny and end to pain and suffering of a fellow human being for the same reasons.

That doesn't follow, since capitalist societies are not necessarily devoid of compassion.  Though it would be interesting to see you argue otherwise.

Where your surgery is concerned Bryan, you were lucky. Unfortunately you don't even have the balls to even admit it. Maybe you should walk a mile in someone elses shoes.

Maybe you should have a clue about the large amount of charity work I've done in my time.  But I doubt it.  Why don't you call me a dick again?

That sir, is why you are a dick.

Wow.  What would you call me without the many hours of charity work I've done voluntarily and at my own expense?

I realize that may not be a serious critique by your standards, but I feel it is more than appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you're not smug or anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My apologies. I wasn't aware of your charity work.

I should have called you "Saint" Dick!

[Bryan]

What I said about my friend the nurse was that she had insurance that didn't cover diddly squat.  She couldn't upgrade even if she wanted to because, like most of us she can't afford anymore insurance. Again that was part of my intial point, I just don't have the energy to argue every point with you right now. BTW the way I love the way you worked the war in there, that was classy.

You ("Keith") brought up war (apparently bemoaning the fact that war spending deprives Americans of health care).

Blaming me for bringing up the war is classy.

"I just feel that is very sad that in the US if we always have money for war, then why can't we figure out a way for everyone to get quality healthcare regardless of thier financial situation?"

I've been involed in charity work myself (Toys for Tots) but until now I never felt the need to mention it to anyone let alone boast about it on some anonymous message board.

How often does somebody classify you of ill character based simply on the perceived tone of your writing?

Now that I'm aware of all your charity work I'm sorry for saying that you were just a dick. From now on I shall address thee as "Saint Dick".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that's classy, too!

[Stixx3969]

My apologies. I wasn't aware of your charity work.

I should have called you "Saint" Dick!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops! Unintentional dual post.

[Guest Keith-Marshall.Mo]

You ("Keith") brought up war (apparently bemoaning the fact that war spending deprives Americans of health care).

Blaming me for bringing up the war is classy.

Nope, I didn't blame you. I just said it was classy. How you want to take that is up to you.

"I just feel that is very sad that in the US if we always have money for war, then why can't we figure out a way for everyone to get quality healthcare regardless of thier financial situation?"

How often does somebody classify you of ill character based simply on the perceived tone of your writing?

And that's classy, too!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU of all people are going to chastise me for speaking ill of someone or calling someone a name? Thank you for providing a textbook example of hypocrisy.

[Bryan]

You ("Keith") brought up war (apparently bemoaning the fact that war spending deprives Americans of health care).

Blaming me for bringing up the war is classy.

Nope, I didn't blame you. I just said it was classy. How you want to take that is up to you.

Here's what you said, Keith:

"BTW the way I love the way you worked the war in there, that was classy."

You wrote that I "worked the war in there"--as though it was not an issue that you introduced.

One has to wonder at the supposed substance of the comment if we dispense with the idea that you were blaming me for introducing the war to the conversation.

Reads like a CYA strategy, IMHO.

"I just feel that is very sad that in the US if we always have money for war, then why can't we figure out a way for everyone to get quality healthcare regardless of thier financial situation?"

How often does somebody classify you of ill character based simply on the perceived tone of your writing?

And that's classy, too!

YOU of all people are going to chastise me for speaking ill of someone or calling someone a name? Thank you for providing a textbook example of hypocrisy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if you paid attention to what I wrote (which I realize could be a stretch right there), you'd see that you were criticized not for calling names but for appearing to have little grounds for calling names. Isn't that an important distinction?

Are you having trouble answering the arguments I set forth earlier, or is it that you prefer name-calling to discussion, Keith?

[ElneClare]

While between finding out why I was tire and in pain all the time and getting disability, my ex was given the money we had put in his retirement ( Thrift Savings Plan) of which %50 was to go to me by federal and state law.

Unable to work, I spent 6 months living off my share of the retirement fund, so my dis and I could have a roof over our heads and food on the table. Thankfully the sliding scale health clinic felt that since it was money I receive due to my divorce, it wasn't income and only charge me for tests.

Today, I don't dare marry anyone, who can't afford to cover all of my medical expenses. If they are cover by medical insurance, I would have to go without much of the care I now get, due to the fact that Maryland hasn't cut out aptient coverage for mental illness to the point that I can't see a doctor once a month and get treated for my depression. I have better chance at winning the Lottery then being able to get off disability and become self supportive again.

I see that things here haven't change much, by the way. Enjoy flaming my mistakes in grammar and spelling. I may even come back to read them something in the next month, if I find myself bored again.

[Stixx3969]

While between finding out why I was tire and in pain all the time and getting disability, my ex was given the money we had put in his retirement ( Thrift Savings Plan) of which %50 was to go to me by federal and state law.

Unable to work, I spent 6 months living off my share of the retirement fund, so my dis and I could have a roof over our heads and food on the table.  Thankfully the sliding scale health clinic felt that since it was money I receive due to my divorce, it wasn't income and only charge me for tests. 

Today, I don't dare marry anyone, who can't afford to cover all of my medical expenses. If they are cover by medical insurance, I would have to go without much of the care I now get, due to the fact that Maryland hasn't cut out aptient coverage for mental illness to the point that I can't see a doctor once a month and get treated for my depression.  I have better chance at winning the Lottery then being able to get off disability and become self supportive again. 

I see that things here haven't change much, by the way.  Enjoy flaming my mistakes in grammar and spelling.  I may even come back to read them something in the next month, if I find myself bored again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the contrary. I hope that everything works out for you and your health gets better.

[Guest Guest]

National health care is just another Loony Left giveaway program. It fits right in with the Loony Left philosophy of "No Personal Responsibility".  Social Security benefits for illegal aliens, paid college tuition for illegal aliens, turning the U.S. into  a "Nanny State" is the goal of the secular progressives.  America was built on hard work by people who appreciated the opportunity to work to attain a better life for their families. The Loony Left says lets tax the people who have worked hard to attain success and give it those who choose not to work. Lets give those same people free health care and we'll have the hard workers pay for it. "Income Redistribution" is one of Hilliary and Osamabama's favorite topics. For all you slugs that are averse to working for a living, there's your salvation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the only posting on this entire topic that makes any sense.