Health law could ban low-cost plans

[rivrrat]

Just as most would say a scooter is more affordable than luxury BMW. But they are not comparable. Your procedures are done out patient. Compare it with other outpatient procedures done that insurance does cover:

The average endoscopy cost in United States can vary widely based on type of endoscopy that is being performed and if any samples or biopsies are sent to pathology for analysis. For this procedure, the fees charged by the facility can exceed the fees charged by the physician. In New York for example, the hospital may charge $2,000 for an endoscopy but the physician may only charge $700. If a tissue sample is taken and sent to pathology, the overall endoscopy cost can increase from $200 to $800 depending on the tests being done on the tissue.

Surgery.com - The Cost of Endoscopy


Comparing the two scooters, which is cheaper?

Hospitals have many outpatient procedures.

Fact is, you can't deny that competition drives down the costs in the elective surgeries and procedures market. The costs for elective procedures have not skyrocketed like other costs have. And the technology only continues to advance, making the procedures more efficient and effective. That same competition would drive down costs in all other segments save ERs. Hospitals charge 500x what things actually cost and the reasons are govt, insurance, and malpractice bull****. We can remove one, greatly limit another, and reform the third.

I don't know why people think that increasing that which broke the system to begin with is what will fix it. It's absolutely insane. Govt and insurance is what caused the problems to begin with and what's peoples answer to that? MORE govt and insurance. Absolutely, without a doubt, insanity.

 

[Boo Radley]

Hospitals have many outpatient procedures.

Fact is, you can't deny that competition drives down the costs in the elective surgeries and procedures market. The costs for elective procedures have not skyrocketed like other costs have. And the technology only continues to advance, making the procedures more efficient and effective. That same competition would drive down costs in all other segments save ERs. Hospitals charge 500x what things actually cost and the reasons are govt, insurance, and malpractice bull****. We can remove one, greatly limit another, and reform the third.

I don't know why people think that increasing that which broke the system to begin with is what will fix it. It's absolutely insane. Govt and insurance is what caused the problems to begin with and what's peoples answer to that? MORE govt and insurance. Absolutely, without a doubt, insanity.

I can argue it. Competition for the most part has little to nothing to do with it. If I can't afford a car, I buy a scooter. No fuss. If my daughter needs a kidney, how's my bargaining power? If I have cancer, do I have the same barganing position that the person wanting larger breasts has?

Again, you compare different things. And even if a triple by pass droped some in cost, would it ever drop enough to be affordable for all? So, you're still left with denying life saving care to those who need it, and if you don't, that cost will be passed on to everyone else. You're solition simply fails to address the larger problem, providing adequate care and protection for the most people, let alone everyone.

 

[rivrrat]

I can argue it. Competition for the most part has little to nothing to do with it. If I can't afford a car, I buy a scooter. No fuss. If my daughter needs a kidney, how's my bargaining power? If I have cancer, do I have the same barganing position that the person wanting larger breasts has?

Yup. There's more than one hospital, and more than one surgeon.

Again, you compare different things. And even if a triple by pass droped some in cost, would it ever drop enough to be affordable for all? So, you're still left with denying life saving care to those who need it, and if you don't, that cost will be passed on to everyone else. You're solition simply fails to address the larger problem, providing adequate care and protection for the most people, let alone everyone.

Adequate care and protection need not be provided to anyone. It just needs to be available to everyone, and it is.

 

[Boo Radley]

Yup. There's more than one hospital, and more than one surgeon.



Adequate care and protection need not be provided to anyone. It just needs to be available to everyone, and it is.

And you'll find their prices are about the same. All too much for the vast majority. (not to mention most can't search too far for a hospital)

Whether it needs to be may well be subjective, but we've already said we won't turn people away. As long as that is true, people who can't pay will be treated and that cost will be passed on.

 

[rivrrat]

And you'll find their prices are about the same. All too much for the vast majority. (not to mention most can't search too far for a hospital)

Yes, they are NOW. Jesus christ, haven't you been reading? I'm talking about promoting competition, putting the patient and doctors back in charge of healthcare instead of insurance companies and the government.

Whether it needs to be may well be subjective, but we've already said we won't turn people away. As long as that is true, people who can't pay will be treated and that cost will be passed on.

Doctors can turn people away, so can hosptials. They just can't turn away people in the ER. What they can do, however, and what they DO do, is give limited treatment to non-emergency patients. Sure, they can't turn them away, but they also aren't required to do anything specific. They are only required to take lifesaving measures. And the majority of folks in an ER don't require any life saving measures.

 

[Boo Radley]

Yes, they are NOW. Jesus christ, haven't you been reading? I'm talking about promoting competition, putting the patient and doctors back in charge of healthcare instead of insurance companies and the government.

It won't do that. Hospitals are located so that they don't really compete. It isn't about insurance, but about the consumer really having no leveage. None. Having a smaller practice that charges more is actually better for doctors. And I have asked that you look at care before insurance. People were left out, and prices were not lower for hosptial procedures. They were simply only for those who could afford it.

Doctors can turn people away, so can hosptials. They just can't turn away people in the ER. What they can do, however, and what they DO do, is give limited treatment to non-emergency patients. Sure, they can't turn them away, but they also aren't required to do anything specific. They are only required to take lifesaving measures. And the majority of folks in an ER don't require any life saving measures.

True, but those who are not seen by doctors and hosptials get seen in the er. They still can't pay, but now are in worse condition and get treatment. That cost is passed on. Which is what I'm saying.

 

[rivrrat]

It won't do that. Hospitals are located so that they don't really compete. It isn't about insurance, but about the consumer really having no leveage. None. Having a smaller practice that charges more is actually better for doctors. And I have asked that you look at care before insurance. People were left out, and prices were not lower for hosptial procedures. They were simply only for those who could afford it.

And I disagree. I see competition working to lower costs and advance technology in every other market and also in certain healthcare markets. I see no reason why it wouldn't work in this one. You can track the higher costs directly with insurance and government involvement, along with malpractice suits.

True, but those who are not seen by doctors and hosptials get seen in the er. They still can't pay, but now are in worse condition and get treatment. That cost is passed on. Which is what I'm saying.

Well, I disagree with forcing hospitals to treat people in an ER, but that's beside the point.

Yes, the cost is passed on because some people are assholes and don't pay their bills. And most of the folks I've encountered in the ER DID have insurance, they had govt insurance. (which usually meant they got even crappier treatment) But if we remove the mechanisms that raised the costs and keep raising them, we can lower the costs and fewer people will skip out on their bills. Well, that may not be because lower costs aren't going to turn assholes into moral people, but at least the bills that are skipped out on will be lower.

 

[Boo Radley]

And I disagree. I see competition working to lower costs and advance technology in every other market and also in certain healthcare markets. I see no reason why it wouldn't work in this one. You can track the higher costs directly with insurance and government involvement, along with malpractice suits.

But every other market is different. The consumer can walk away, do without. The cancer victim has less ability to to do this. So does the injury victim. Again, go back to before insurance.


1920-1930: The Rising Price of Medical Care

As the twentieth century progressed, several changes occurred that tended to increase the role that medicine played in people's lives and to shift the focus of treatment of acute illness from homes to hospitals. These changes caused the price of medical care to rise as demand for medical care increased and the cost of supplying medical care rose with increased standards of quality for physicians and hospitals.

(snip)

Increasing requirements for licensure and accreditation, in addition to a rising demand for medical care, eventually led to rising costs. In 1927, the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care (CCMC) was formed to investigate the medical expenses of American families. Comprised of physicians, economists, and public health specialists, the CCMC published 27 research reports, offering reliable estimates of national health care expenditures. According to one CCMC study, the average American family had medical expenses totaling $108 in 1929, with hospital expenditures comprising 14 percent of the total bill (Falk, Rorem, and Ring 1933, p. 89). In 1929, medical charges for urban families with incomes between $2,000 and $3,000 per year averaged $67 if there were no hospitalizations, but averaged $261 if there were any illnesses that required hospitalization (see Falk, Rorem, and Ring). By 1934, Michael M. Davis, a leading advocate of reform, noted that hospital costs had risen to nearly 40 percent of a family's medical bill (Davis 1934, p. 211). By the end of the 1920s, families began to demand greater amounts of medical care, and the costs of medical care began to increase.

Health Insurance in the United States | Economic History Services

Doctors won't go back to trading fruits and vegetables for service.

Well, I disagree with forcing hospitals to treat people in an ER, but that's beside the point.

Yes, the cost is passed on because some people are assholes and don't pay their bills. And most of the folks I've encountered in the ER DID have insurance, they had govt insurance. (which usually meant they got even crappier treatment) But if we remove the mechanisms that raised the costs and keep raising them, we can lower the costs and fewer people will skip out on their bills. Well, that may not be because lower costs aren't going to turn assholes into moral people, but at least the bills that are skipped out on will be lower.

What you think is less important that what we cna prove to be true. Some people do have insurance and wrongly use the ER, but having insurance is also having a payer, so less a problem. What can be afforded may well be somewhat subjective, but we know many do pay those bills. And a percentage can factually be said not capable of paying them.

And there is no evidence they would be lower.


Also, you threw in tort reform. Haven't states passed tort reform with no measurable decrease in cost? I don't oppose tort refrom overall, but I haven't seen evidence that it actually reduces costs. Have you?

 

[rivrrat]

But every other market is different. The consumer can walk away, do without. The cancer victim has less ability to to do this. So does the injury victim. Again, go back to before insurance.


1920-1930: The Rising Price of Medical Care

As the twentieth century progressed, several changes occurred that tended to increase the role that medicine played in people's lives and to shift the focus of treatment of acute illness from homes to hospitals. These changes caused the price of medical care to rise as demand for medical care increased and the cost of supplying medical care rose with increased standards of quality for physicians and hospitals.

(snip)

Increasing requirements for licensure and accreditation, in addition to a rising demand for medical care, eventually led to rising costs. In 1927, the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care (CCMC) was formed to investigate the medical expenses of American families. Comprised of physicians, economists, and public health specialists, the CCMC published 27 research reports, offering reliable estimates of national health care expenditures. According to one CCMC study, the average American family had medical expenses totaling $108 in 1929, with hospital expenditures comprising 14 percent of the total bill (Falk, Rorem, and Ring 1933, p. 89). In 1929, medical charges for urban families with incomes between $2,000 and $3,000 per year averaged $67 if there were no hospitalizations, but averaged $261 if there were any illnesses that required hospitalization (see Falk, Rorem, and Ring). By 1934, Michael M. Davis, a leading advocate of reform, noted that hospital costs had risen to nearly 40 percent of a family's medical bill (Davis 1934, p. 211). By the end of the 1920s, families began to demand greater amounts of medical care, and the costs of medical care began to increase.

Health Insurance in the United States | Economic History Services

Doctors won't go back to trading fruits and vegetables for service.




What you think is less important that what we cna prove to be true. Some people do have insurance and wrongly use the ER, but having insurance is also having a payer, so less a problem. What can be afforded may well be somewhat subjective, but we know many do pay those bills. And a percentage can factually be said not capable of paying them.

And there is no evidence they would be lower.


Also, you threw in tort reform. Haven't states passed tort reform with no measurable decrease in cost? I don't oppose tort refrom overall, but I haven't seen evidence that it actually reduces costs. Have you?

I have dealt with doctors who trade goods and services for THEIR services.

Regardless, let me give you a very small example of what I'm talking about. Admittedly a small one, but very indicative of what I'm trying to get at, and what I've experienced as a consumer as well as a medical professional. At my hometown hospital, (and at other hospitals as I've found out) they offer a service for some of the most requested lab tests. These lab tests are ordered by doctors all the fricken time. If you go to a doctor and he orders these tests done, you have to pay the doctor AND the hospital lab for the work. Many of these tests run into the hundreds of dollars. One that I need regularly is nearly $300 a pop. IF I have my doctor order it. OR... If I have it go through my insurance. In an effort to get people NOT to go through the insurance, the hospital offers these lab tests at a MUCH cheaper rate. Instead of $300 for the test, you can pay $15. The test only actually costs $15, you see. All of the rest is overhead. So, if a patient tears up their doctors orders and does NOT put it on their insurance and pays CASH, the tests costs are minimal. The PATIENT is the one ordering the test. No middle man. No insurance. No government. The patient orders the test, pays cash and receives the results in their hand. Results that they could take to ANY doctor they wish. $300 vs $15. That's the difference between using insurance, and not using it. The hospital prefers that you didn't, so they make it easy and appealing for you not to.

That's one small example of what I am getting at.

 

[Boo Radley]

I have dealt with doctors who trade goods and services for THEIR services.

Regardless, let me give you a very small example of what I'm talking about. Admittedly a small one, but very indicative of what I'm trying to get at, and what I've experienced as a consumer as well as a medical professional. At my hometown hospital, (and at other hospitals as I've found out) they offer a service for some of the most requested lab tests. These lab tests are ordered by doctors all the fricken time. If you go to a doctor and he orders these tests done, you have to pay the doctor AND the hospital lab for the work. Many of these tests run into the hundreds of dollars. One that I need regularly is nearly $300 a pop. IF I have my doctor order it. OR... If I have it go through my insurance. In an effort to get people NOT to go through the insurance, the hospital offers these lab tests at a MUCH cheaper rate. Instead of $300 for the test, you can pay $15. The test only actually costs $15, you see. All of the rest is overhead. So, if a patient tears up their doctors orders and does NOT put it on their insurance and pays CASH, the tests costs are minimal. The PATIENT is the one ordering the test. No middle man. No insurance. No government. The patient orders the test, pays cash and receives the results in their hand. Results that they could take to ANY doctor they wish. $300 vs $15. That's the difference between using insurance, and not using it. The hospital prefers that you didn't, so they make it easy and appealing for you not to.

That's one small example of what I am getting at.

That's a different type of example, and something I will have to check into.

Let me give you an example. I used to sell medical supplies. We gave bandaids to hospitals for free so they would buy our nebulizers. That free bandaid would cost about a dollar box back then, and not much more now. The hospital charged $5 a badnid then. I'm told they charge better than $16 now. Why? When asked they didn't mention insurance, but the cost of paying for those treated who could not pay.

I'll get back to you on your lab example.

 

[Telecaster]

Ah just another reason why when government touches something it turns to ****. Im sure people that have these insurance plans are going to be soooo happy when they hear this news.

Health law could ban low-cost plans - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

It's all designed to, over time, turn the responsibility of providing healthcare over to the Feds.

Remember when they said, "If you like your plan, you can keep it"?

 

[Boo Radley]

It's all designed to, over time, turn the responsibility of providing healthcare over to the Feds.

Remember when they said, "If you like your plan, you can keep it"?

And you can.