New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage (1 Viewer)

[R. Shackleferd]

Sounds like our medical care was priced too high for 45,000 people so they chose not to purchase it.

What causes these prices to be unaffordable to 45,000 people?

No one dies because they aren't on "a plan that pays for their care", they die because they don't pay for their care. You don't have to have a "plan" for care, just cash.

You've made this point 3 times and a lot of people have agreed with you. I agree with you. But the discussion isn't about plans = life. It's about, as you recognized, price. These prices, along with the reasons why the prices are as they are, make cash an unrealistic option. That is why plans are typically talked about.

Insurance is not necessary to purchase healthcare. I just paid cash for an operation last December. I had the cash to pay because I DIDN'T have insurance - since I choose to not pay a big pile of money each month for an over-insurance plan, I save thousands of dollars which I can afford to spend on actual medical care as opposed to insurance.

Congratulations. You da man. Way to save money for a health catastrophe. Any advice for people who can never afford to do that and rely on their employers or the government to give them health insurance? Happy to see you have enough disposable income to save. No wonder taxes and inflation and lack of free entry don't seem to mean much to you. This is why there's an insurance box we cant get out of.

Any "state created barriers of entry in the market" are created because our country is a federation of states and each state has the right to create it's own laws.

All of which is immoral and a practice that needs to be abolished.

To remove such barriers would require desolving our individual states rights and transfering all right of government to the federal government.

To remove such barriers would require the individual states to not do what they've been doing.

And barriers of market entry aren't always bad. I'd much prefer to know that my doctor has gone to a qualified med school, had trained as an intern, and has passed a test or two.

Free markets do not ban health organizations from having only qualified medical professionals. Your demand for safety and assurance and how you perceive quality would be supplied.

If we eleminated all barriers of entry, then just any yahoo could call themselves "doctor".

Like Dr Laura and Dr Phil and Dr Dre and Dr Dré?

You're showing concern for fraud. Fraud is considered to be an aggressive act. Unchecked aggression would make any market unfree, particularly if this form of aggression flourished. The free market solution to this is for someone like you to not go to a doctor who could not produce reliable and verifiable proof of his ability by work history, reputation, references from reputable doctors, trade associations and the institution in which the doctor attended to become a doctor. The free market does not ban, discourage or distort this kind of process. The opposite would occur because there is no unaccountable coercive monopoly to focus on for these matters.

Same with insurance companies. We have laws to govern insurance companies because otherwise just any old Joe the Plumber could claim to be an insurance company, and when you are sick and in the hospital he could then say "oops, sorry, I don't cover your particular illness".

Same applies. But in a free market more people would be as privileged as you to render the necessity of insurance obsolete except for catostrophic or expensive procedures.

Competing currencies are just a flat out stupid idea and has been successful in all of history. We are already one of the least taxed countries in the world, and deflation only occurs in very bad economies. Glad I could help inform you about economics.

Even if competing currencies were inherently a bad idea, which they are not, it's immoral to place bans on how people voluntarily trade with one another. Whether or not we are the least taxed countries does not change the fact that we are taxed too much and suffer as a result. The deflation most kenyesians fear is the deflation that occurs before the period of hyper inflation. I'm interested to know more about why competing currency is a bad idea though. Honest invitation

 

[joko104]

But you are (as a society) paying the medical bills of people who can't afford or aren't allowed to purchase health insurance. There's no such thing as a money tree.

Sure there is. It has been decided that I am a money tree. Like it or not. And a money tree for corporate America and political contributions.

 

[joko104]

People die because without insurance, they don't get proper healthcare. The lack of insurance leads to a lack of healthcare. If you don't have insurance and can't afford treatment, a clinic will probably just turn you away. An ER is only required to stabilize you, not treat you. Plus, once you make it to the ER, the condition may already be fatal when it might previously have been treatable.

I do not believe you can legislate that life is equally fair nor can you legislate each person working as hard as everyone else. Increasingly, our government is designed to reward failure, laziness and irresponsibility.

If anyone can explain why I should have to pay for someone else's $150,000 complex heart surgery - meaning I have to labor to give it to them - I'm listening.

Only a fool would have a health savings plan nor spend 1 minute working to save for one. Why do so when you can have everyone else do it for you?

Socialism never works. If you can get something for nothing and if everyone has the same whether they work 80 hours a week or get stoned everyday watching TV, it will fail.

Curiously, my government employment provides health insurance for me, but I won't have to pay $1 of ObamaCare nor will my children. Native American tribe exemption. I guess once a year or so I'll have to go to some sorta ritual or something. That sucks but if it is worth thousands of dollars to me? Sure, I'm go spend a couple hours a year at that. I wonder if they'll insist I put on come touristy NA costume and dance? Send the White House a video? I know for religous exemption you have to pass the White House/IRS test to prove your religiousness. Religious and race registration, testing and documentation are an important growing aspect of being an American.

I suppose if Obama Care becomes law I should thank all of you on behalf of my children.

Thanks for paying their way. Should give them more money - meaning effectively your money - to spend on pleasures. Thanks for going to work for them and if my job changes, for me.

 

[Deuce]

You have just illustrated the reason why we can't solve the healthcare crises. We are unable to think beyond the health insurance box. We blame every healthcare issue on insurance. We refuse to accept that insurance is not necessary to purchase health care. We don't understand that the $500 deductable $20 copay PPO and HMO isn't really part of the solution, it's most of the problem.

No, people don't die because without insurance they don't get proper healthcare. Lots of people get proper healthcare every day without insurance. Insurance is most certainly not the only way to pay for something. I paid for my December surgery with a check, it wasn't that difficult and the hospital and doctor were more than happy to accept my check. People die because they don't have enough money to purchase overpriced healthcare. Overpriced and no savings is the problem, not insurance. Reducing our relyance on insurance can help solve both of the problems.

Someone please tell me one reason that it would be impossible for someone to save up and pay for their own medical care.

One reason? Sure.

A serious illness or injury is beyond the financial capacity of most families. You can't afford cancer treatment.

 

[Deuce]

I do not believe you can legislate that life is equally fair nor can you legislate each person working as hard as everyone else. Increasingly, our government is designed to reward failure, laziness and irresponsibility.

If anyone can explain why I should have to pay for someone else's $150,000 complex heart surgery - meaning I have to labor to give it to them - I'm listening.

Because we're a society. Nobody can afford a $150,000 heart surgery on their own, except for the upper class. It's why insurance exists in the first place. Most people wont need a heart transplant, but those unlucky enough to need it can't afford it by themselves. None of us know if we're going to be that unlucky person, so we band together to spread the risk.

Only a fool would have a health savings plan nor spend 1 minute working to save for one. Why do so when you can have everyone else do it for you?

Socialism never works. If you can get something for nothing and if everyone has the same whether they work 80 hours a week or get stoned everyday watching TV, it will fail.

Which is why you require everyone to chip in. Everyone will need healthcare, so everyone should have to pay for healthcare. The insurance mandate is one method to make this happen, although I don't think it's a very good one. The other option is to do it through taxes. Despite the rhetoric, everyone pays taxes.

Curiously, my government employment provides health insurance for me, but I won't have to pay $1 of ObamaCare nor will my children. Native American tribe exemption. I guess once a year or so I'll have to go to some sorta ritual or something. That sucks but if it is worth thousands of dollars to me? Sure, I'm go spend a couple hours a year at that. I wonder if they'll insist I put on come touristy NA costume and dance? Send the White House a video? I know for religous exemption you have to pass the White House/IRS test to prove your religiousness. Religious and race registration, testing and documentation are an important growing aspect of being an American.

If you already have health insurance, the health care bill wasn't really going to affect you anyway. Why would you care about an insurance mandate when you have insurance anyway? You don't need to fraudulently present yourself as a Native American, just continue purchasing health insurance like you already do. Unless you plan to drop the insurance, for some reason?

I suppose if Obama Care becomes law I should thank all of you on behalf of my children.

Thanks for paying their way. Should give them more money - meaning effectively your money - to spend on pleasures. Thanks for going to work for them and if my job changes, for me.

Quite frankly, I don't think you even understand how the bill works.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

No one dies from lack of insurance. Insurance doesn't cure people. Healthcare does.

Depending on the individuals behavior, medical care doesn't even cure people.
That's the problem with these studies and UHC advocates.

They treat medical care as the holy grail.

 

[Boo Radley]

People always say that everybody gets treated in the emergency room, we we don't have a problem. Well, here's the thing. Yes, if you break your arm, the emergency room will treat you. Yes, if you have a diabetes episode, the ER will stabilize you. Same with a heart attack. You'll be treated. But that's far from getting free healthcare.

If one has any one of dozens of pre-existing condition and doesn't work for a company who provides health insurance, that person is uninsurable. No matter how much he would be willing to pay, nobody will insure him. Or, if that person can find an insurance company who'll cover him? Well, they'll exclude that/those pre-existing conditions and, basically, the skin and all its contents. I know. I've been there and back.

Now, if that same person owns a home, has always been a productive member of society, has money in the bank, he will have to spend himself penniless before Medicaid will help him...completely exhausting his family's resources.

First of all, if he has no insurance (remember, because he can't buy it), if he goes to the hospital with a heart attack? He's probably looking at a minimum bill of $30-$40K just to stabilize him. If he needs open-heart surgery? Probably over $100K. Well, now his house is gone, his money's gone. He, his wife and kids are broke.

So. He doesn't get open heart surgery. Or, he doesn't treat his diabetes. Or, he doesn't have that lump checked out on one of his testicles -- and his wife doesn't get a mammogram; and the lump in her breast is cancerous. And she dies. But not before exhausting every penny the family has. It's almost a crime.

The fact that we don't have national healthcare in this country is very sad. Obamacare needs to be found constitutional. It's the only right thing to do.

Well said. As a people, we could work together and solve this problem. UHC is a solid and valid way to approach it.

 

[xpiher]

must destroy healthcare monopolies

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Depending on the individuals behavior, medical care doesn't even cure people.
That's the problem with these studies and UHC advocates.

They treat medical care as the holy grail.

Well also places that have socialized medicine also have preventive care

 

[sawyerloggingon]

On a purely emotional level I agree that lower income people dying from lack of health care is horrible and not fair and there are tragic story's by the tens of thousands I'm sure. But when you think about it life just isn't fair and the better off you are the better everything is for you including health care. A rich guy drives a new car with all the latest safety features, surrounded by air bags etc. The poor guy drives an old beater and if they both got in identical wrecks one would live the other would die. The rich guy can afford the very best organic food with no chemicals, hormones etc. The poor guy buys the cheapest food he can get which is factory raised beef full of God knows what and eats Big Macs instead of lobster. I could go on and on about this but hopefully you get my point. If we vow to make everyone equal when it comes to health care where does it end?

 

[nonpareil]

No - it's won't remain the same. People do not live forever. If someone is in poor health and has health insurance they are still more likely to succumb to their ailment - it will just take abit longer.

Take my husband for example: all of his health issues - he would have likely passed on by now if he didn't have healthcoverage. So we're just postponing the inevitable.

At some point - all the numbers will equal out.

There aren't a fixed number of people who get sick at one time and that's that. Each year, more people (with and without health insurance) get into the pool, and each year people (with and without health insurance) die. The question they asked is: each year, of the people who die, how many of them have insurance and how many don't? Is there a statistically significant relationship? From that they get the result you see in the article. They just stopped counting at the year 2000.

 

[nonpareil]

The study would not possibly factor variables such as required co-pay and deaths due to delays if everyone went to the doctor every time they had a sniffle as 2 examples. In addition they assert that all people who have insurance go to the doctor when they should.

I read the article and found no such assertion. The study design is base on a regression, as I said, it's rudimentary, so don't take it to mean more than what it really is.

 

[jgarden47]

Special Canada Day Report: How Canada stole the American Dream

The numbers are in. Compared to the U.S., we work less, live longer, enjoy better health and have more sex. And get this: now we're wealthier too.

June 25, 2008

http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080625_50113_50113

Living the American Dream (in Canada)

Timothy M. Smeeding, author of “Persistence, Privilege and Parenting,” is the Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor of Public Affairs and Economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the director of the Institute for Research on Poverty.
January 8, 2012, 7:00 PM

..... Unless the U.S. makes big changes, Americans in search of an equal-opportunity society might just as well move north.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...onomic-mobility-creates-a-land-of-opportunity

While Americans continue dithering over Obamacare, other nations have moved on and are actually living much of the "American Dream."

 

[Aunt Spiker]

There aren't a fixed number of people who get sick at one time and that's that. Each year, more people (with and without health insurance) get into the pool, and each year people (with and without health insurance) die. The question they asked is: each year, of the people who die, how many of them have insurance and how many don't? Is there a statistically significant relationship? From that they get the result you see in the article. They just stopped counting at the year 2000.

More importantly: why don't they have health insurance?
If they had health insurance: would it cover their ailment that they have right now?

If they don't have health insurance because they don't want it - or don't care - or can't afford it: will they care enough to go to the dr after getting insurance? Will they be able to cover copays, etc? Will they care enough to go in for routine care, take their meds - etc?

If you have someone who does't care - and doesn't want it - and won't follow through with all the advice in the world to live 10 more years: what good would insurance serve them?

And if htey have a pre-existing condition of course the only answer to that is can they afford the higher premiums and higher copays and so on?

 

[American]

The doctor is charging the same amount. The difference is that the insured party and their insurance provider are allowed to skate on the entire charge while the uninsured party isn't.

What do you mean allowed to skate?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

What do you mean allowed to skate?

Negotiate a reduction or not pay all of the sum - such as the government. Re medicaid: usually only a small portion of the amount is repaid: drs have no umph to coax the remainder and has to eat the difference - which usually means passing cost hikes to everyone else - which makes care cheapers for gov to cover but more expensive for others to cover.

unjust

 

[American]

Negotiate a reduction or not pay all of the sum - such as the government. Re medicaid: usually only a small portion of the amount is repaid: drs have no umph to coax the remainder and has to eat the difference - which usually means passing cost hikes to everyone else - which makes care cheapers for gov to cover but more expensive for others to cover.

unjust

So the insured get a break...first I've heard of that. I get medical bills all the time. I guess I just don't have connections.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So the insured get a break...first I've heard of that. I get medical bills all the time. I guess I just don't have connections.

Maybe they do - what your insurance company does is behind closed doors.

I don't think every insurance company engages in such practices - I know government programs do, though.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Maybe they do - what your insurance company does is behind closed doors.

I don't think every insurance company engages in such practices - I know government programs do, though.

Doctor's bills get paid direct but for any kind of hospital services we get a bill as well as the insurance company. There are "raw" charges listed near the top, then the negotiated reductions per item further down, followed by the final total. So, yeah, private insurance companies, around here at least, do make deals with the various hospitals for reduced rates.

 

[imagep]

Doctor's bills get paid direct but for any kind of hospital services we get a bill as well as the insurance company. There are "raw" charges listed near the top, then the negotiated reductions per item further down, followed by the final total. So, yeah, private insurance companies, around here at least, do make deals with the various hospitals for reduced rates.

But all they are really doing is jacking up the "suggested retail price" then giving a "discount". One of the doctors offices I used to go with gave me a 30% discount of the suggested retail price for paying in full on the spot (no insurance claim filed), they explained to me that it was the same discount that they gave to most insurance companies. So when everyone gets a 30% discount, with or without insurance, isn't the true price the same as the discount price?

Healthcare facilities are kind of like jewerly stores. They jack up the price so they can give you a discount.

 

[MoSurveyor]

But all they are really doing is jacking up the "suggested retail price" then giving a "discount". One of the doctors offices I used to go with gave me a 30% discount of the suggested retail price for paying in full on the spot (no insurance claim filed), they explained to me that it was the same discount that they gave to most insurance companies. So when everyone gets a 30% discount, with or without insurance, isn't the true price the same as the discount price?

Healthcare facilities are kind of like jewerly stores. They jack up the price so they can give you a discount.

That would assume all the discounts are the same. While a doctor's office may have a fixed discount to simply cut down on the paperwork involved it may not hold true for hospitals, who tend to specialize in different things and have many different areas. One may be cheaper for trauma while another is cheaper for pediatrics. No concrete examples here but other businesses work like this so I suspect hospitals do, too. If their trauma unit is in great demand then "walk-ins" may get charged more for that service.

 

[Boo Radley]

Depending on the individuals behavior, medical care doesn't even cure people.
That's the problem with these studies and UHC advocates.

They treat medical care as the holy grail.

I think everyone understands this. Even those behind the studies and UHC advocates. As for the holy grail, I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Will health care make all problems go away? No. But will not having health care add to or create new ones? Yes.

 

[Dittohead not!]

We pay more, we get less. Is that the American way? It seems to have become so.

Here's my solution:

Let's issue everyone a medical care MasterCard. Only medical services could be charged on it, and the holder would be responsible for paying it. The bank issuing the card would be responsible for collections, and could charge interest just like on a current card. The bank, since they would be taking a risk issuing cards to people with questionable credit, would be allowed to attach wages and whatever other income the recipient might have, including welfare.

Once the holder had charged more than 8% of his annual income on the card in any given year, he/she could bill the federal government for the remainder.

No one would be forced to go into medical bankruptcy.
Everyone could choose whatever health care provider they wanted.
The individual would have the responsibility to shop around for prices.
No medical provider would have to have a billing department.
Overhead would be zero.
Everyone would have insurance.
Everyone would have to pay something.

I think costs would be a lot less under such a system. It would be much more efficient. The government wouldn't be running health care. It's a perfect partnership between the public and private sectors.

There it is, and it doesn't have to occupy 2,000 pages of text.

 

[Deuce]

We pay more, we get less. Is that the American way? It seems to have become so.

Here's my solution:

Let's issue everyone a medical care MasterCard. Only medical services could be charged on it, and the holder would be responsible for paying it. The bank issuing the card would be responsible for collections, and could charge interest just like on a current card. The bank, since they would be taking a risk issuing cards to people with questionable credit, would be allowed to attach wages and whatever other income the recipient might have, including welfare.

Once the holder had charged more than 8% of his annual income on the card in any given year, he/she could bill the federal government for the remainder.

No one would be forced to go into medical bankruptcy.
Everyone could choose whatever health care provider they wanted.
The individual would have the responsibility to shop around for prices.
No medical provider would have to have a billing department.
Overhead would be zero.
Everyone would have insurance.
Everyone would have to pay something.

I think costs would be a lot less under such a system. It would be much more efficient. The government wouldn't be running health care. It's a perfect partnership between the public and private sectors.

There it is, and it doesn't have to occupy 2,000 pages of text.

It's still going to meet the same opposition: people who freak out about the concept of paying for the healthcare of others. A poor person with a major health issue is going to dump a huge cost onto the taxpayers.

I kindof like the concept, but it still doesn't really address some of the underlying issues that make our healthcare more expensive than it should be.

 

[Boo Radley]

We pay more, we get less. Is that the American way? It seems to have become so.

Here's my solution:

Let's issue everyone a medical care MasterCard. Only medical services could be charged on it, and the holder would be responsible for paying it. The bank issuing the card would be responsible for collections, and could charge interest just like on a current card. The bank, since they would be taking a risk issuing cards to people with questionable credit, would be allowed to attach wages and whatever other income the recipient might have, including welfare.

Once the holder had charged more than 8% of his annual income on the card in any given year, he/she could bill the federal government for the remainder.

No one would be forced to go into medical bankruptcy.
Everyone could choose whatever health care provider they wanted.
The individual would have the responsibility to shop around for prices.
No medical provider would have to have a billing department.
Overhead would be zero.
Everyone would have insurance.
Everyone would have to pay something.

I think costs would be a lot less under such a system. It would be much more efficient. The government wouldn't be running health care. It's a perfect partnership between the public and private sectors.

There it is, and it doesn't have to occupy 2,000 pages of text.

No. It has to be complicated so everyone opposing it can say they hindered it, and those for it can say they tried. Being complicated covers a lot of sins.