|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.188.116.141
From the NY Times"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin (Open in New Window)
Follow Ups:
G'day Kava,
I don’t fully understand your system over there so please forgive my ignorance on the matter.
What does it cost to have a simple visit to a doctor in private practise?
An example of a simple visit might be; I am doing some gardening and cut my hand on a rose bush and my hand gets infected and I go to the doctor for some antibiotics or I fall over pissed and hurt my arm and go to the doctor for some pain killers or anti inflammatory pills etc.
So what is the approximate cost of the quick visit to the doctor to get a prescription for some medication AND who pays??
Thanks.
Smile
Sox
Generally speaking the co-pay for such visits is around $25.00. If you cannot get to your own doctor, there are what are called "Urgent Care" centers in storefront locations. If uninsured - any Hospital Emergency room is required to treat you.
Many medical practices also have "walk-in" hours IF you are already a patient of the practice.
Among the unintended consaequences in Massachusetts are the long waits to become an established member of a medical practice since their laws now require everyone to be insured and everyone to get a checkup. I don't know about you but I can't remember having (or needing) very many checkups when I was 25 or 30. Forcing checkups in order to qualify for the (required) medical insurance is, apparently, what is clogging the system. Prior to this a lot of younger folks were uninsured by choice because they didn't want to spend the money and thought themselves invincible. You know the drill.
No question the system is broken and needs fixing or replacing. The question is which approach to take and how to avoid making things worse. Thus far, the bureaucracy seems ill suited to the purpose.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
G'day Kava,
So you go to the doctor and you pay approximately $25 for the visit. Who pays, and how much, the rest of the fee? (Insurance or government)
IMHO forcing people to have check-ups is silly & I think it would choke any health system in the world.
Smile
Sox
There's the rub. Insurance pays and the patients, very often, never even know how much. If they did - they'd crap their pants in many instances.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
... Our system is very different.
Thanks for the info.
Smile
Sox
s
xoxo
...88% Democrat (!) you can bet that theirs was the heaviest (nanniest?) hand.
clark
xoxo
c
xoxo
Oh. You already do?
clark
.....you forgot to mention the cost of this war which your monarch lied to us about. Sure politicians lie about spending but they don't usually lie to us about war spending. You know, over-infated bills from companies like Haliburton (and other cronies) with no oversight, 4000 funerals that they didn't count on I guess. You pick on health spending that might benefit some people. It must be nice not to be burdened by compassion or empathy.
Good to have that on record.
Plus, gotta hand it to ya dude, you are hilarious!
"4000 funerals that they didn't count on." Right. As opposed to the mere 60,000 from Johnson's War.
"You forgot to mention the cost of this war which your monarch lied to us about."
1) My monarch? A guy I never even voted for?
2) Johnson's War cost $700 billion in 2007 dollars -- he didn't exactly spell that out from the start, did he?
clark
....What does Johnson have to do with this? Really, what the hell does LBJ have to do with this? I don't care who you voted for if you did vote. He's still your king. Your doing a tap dance which is something you usually do if your challenged. I remember your post when it was mentioned that Fats Domino was rescued at the Katrina scene. It wasn't nice. Your lame-ass white boy comment was not funny. You cloak your crap in innuendo and double-entendre but you are from the Boston area and Boston does have a reputation.
Good, you can put this on record too, whatever record your talking about. You are a sick little man who desperately needs to post on sites like this to constantly validate your existence. Yes dude, this is your life.
bgs
"What does Johnson have to do with this?" More hilarity from Jersey -- yes, you do, judging by that, have a sense of humor. Demented, yes, but a sense there of some sort. You were talking about cost of wars, right? Quote: "[Politicians] don't usually lie to us about war spending." I provided the counter-example, a prominent (liberal) Democrat. I might have added Wilson and Roosevelt. You didn't like it, so you tried to dodge the question you had raised. Unsuccessfully.
"Your doing a tap dance." My doing a tap dance, what? Finish your thought.
"...something you usually do if your challenged." If my challenged, what? (Oh never mind...)
"You cloak your crap in innuendo and double-entendre." Mercy! It looks to me like my opinions of opinionated's charm and logic are rather plainly spoken.
"But you are from the Boston area and Boston does have a reputation." Yep. Colleges and universities, research institutions, art, music, 2X World Series champeens, first NBA team to field a black guy, first NBA team to choose a black coach, first NBA team to choose a second black coach... Granted, hockey here is pretty white -- all those lame-ass white boys from Canada. What can one do?
clark
....signed by Nat (Sweetwater) Clifton, NY Knicks. First player in a game was Earl LLoyd (with no contract), Washington Caps. Second black coach was also Earl LLoyd, I believe it was Detroit. Yup, Russell was the first black coach thanks to Red Auerback. Still doesn't change Boston's rep.
Oh yeah, I believed you doubled the deaths in Johnson's War from 30-60,000 and the war did start be before LBJ. an Ike domino game.
No I was talking about current situations. You pull a situation out that was ended over 30 years ago. How could I out charm you, the master of the one-liners. I guess take ClarkJohnsen....please would suffice.
And what's Red Auerback [sic] got to do with it? Besides being a great hoops guy.
"Oh yeah, I believed you doubled the deaths in Johnson's War from 30-60,000." Wasn't me, them's the stats. Don't like it eh? Hurts, huh? It was the longest war in American history and the most unpopular American war of the twentieth century. It resulted in nearly 60,000 American deaths.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm
"And the war did start be before LBJ. an Ike domino game." Right. Actually it started under Truman, but if it makes you happy to blame Ike, be my guest. But look at it this way: [Before 1960] the United States sent in 2,000 military advisors, a number that grew to 16,300 in 1963. The military condition deteriorated, and by 1963 South Vietnam had lost the fertile Mekong Delta to the Vietcong. In 1965, Johnson escalated the war, commencing air strikes on North Vietnam and committing ground forces, which numbered 536,000 in 1968.
Ike: 2000. LBJ: 536,000.
"No I was talking about current situations." Oh now he tells us! As if, history (recent history at that) no longer exists, or has any relevance. Not to mention that the line, "Sure politicians lie about spending but they don't usually lie to us about war spending" certainly must include an historical perspective.
Repeat: You are hilarious... if mirthless.
clark
..you took the total length of the war which did cost 58-60,000 deaths and laid it all on Johnson. The war went on into Nixon's presidency -- another slick move. Johnson did escalate the war but not all the casualties were his.
I did mention Clifton's contract, so what? I also wrote that Earl LLoyd was the first black basketball player in the NBA and it wasn't in Boston. Neither was the second black coach. And what's Auerbach (hit a k by mistake before) have to do with it? He drafted Russell and he also was the guy who brought in a black with the Washington Caps previously.
Boston's rep---you can check that out. One of the top 3 whitest cities in the country, one of the only large cities in the US never to have had a black mayor, segregated neighborhoods, schools. Louise Day Hicks---and on and on. one of the toughest cities for an educated black to get a job..no sense going on. I'm through with this nonsense.
Let's remember that government intervention with Medicare and Medicaid, the fact that the government pays 30% of all medical bills in the United States, the fact that bureacrats are deciding the price and availability of many medical procedures (as opposed to market forces) is the reason we HAVE a shortage of medical doctors.
It ain't the profession it used to be, and the goverment is the reason.
We all know that private insurers pay most of the balance. But the goverment's role distorts the entire marketplace. People are insulated from cost-benefit decisions, doctors routinely over-prescribe medications and services or overbill insurance companies, and there's no push-back from the marketplace.
Let's all remember that Government run healthcare is not the holy grail of medical care. In fact, there is none. Let's also remember that the best discipline, the greatest force for creating efficiencies and cost-reductions is free market competition. Without it, we will flounder. What we gain as individual consumers will be more than taken away by the tax man and the bureacrats.
Let's also remember that tort reform is ESSENTIAL to controlling medical costs as well.
In fact, there are many many things we can do to foster more efficient, more effective healthcare in the United States short of handing it over to clueless, lobby-ridden bureacrats and politicians.
How about medical savings accounts?
How about tax credits for lower income individuals to help pay for private insurace?
How about allow free and unfettered competition between insurance companies throughout the country?
How about outlawing cigarettes?
How about mandating the production of healthy foods?
How about low cost financing for medical costs when the get excessive?
And how about limiting goverment involvement ONLY to catastrophic cases?
How about allowing people who choose to, to die with dignity on their own terms when they face terminal illness, rather than being "processed" against their will at the end of life, when, I believe, over 80% of all medical expenses are incurred?
And for those who really NEED government sponsored medical care, how about demanding that they submit to drug tests, smoking tests, and abide by a standard sensible health regimen?
How about getting serious about medical tort reform, and massive class action suits that add untold billions to the cost of drugs and medical procedures?
The goverment has made a freakin' MESS out of social security. Medicare can't even account for its expenses. We are laboring under a burder of entitlements that already consumes the lion's share of government expenditures. According to INFOPLEASE:
So about 42 percent of the federal budget is going to Social Security and subsidized health care. Other means-tested entitlements and mandatory payments and net interest on the federal debt add up to 23 percent. So, the 42 percent for Social Security and subsidized health care and the 23 percent for other entitlements and net interest equal 65 percent, or about two-thirds of total expenditures.
Why on earth would we embark on an even BIGGER commitment when we are endanger of bankrupting the country with the entitlement programs we already have?
...anything they do!
Boston's "Big Dig" opened at $3.5 billion, and closed at $16.
The new Newton MA high school has gone up from $110 million to $200. (But now they have an outdoor pool too...)
The Bush drug provision...
Medicare and Medicaid...
The ADA...
All business as usual for government, whose appetite for taxpayer dollars is voracious.
Oh, and, let's remember the huge pensions they pay themselves, and other after-employment benefits.
clark
Let's remember that government intervention with Medicare and Medicaid, the fact that the government pays 30% of all medical bills in the United States, the fact that bureacrats are deciding the price and availability of many medical procedures (as opposed to market forces) is the reason we HAVE a shortage of medical doctors.
***Where did you come up with 30%. Seems like a number pulled directly from thin air. My experience and that of many is that medical procedures for the 60-70% of people with health insurance is governed by the Insurance Companies and their gate keepers not Federal Bureaucrats. I have never heard of a Federal person telling an Insured person what procedure he can or cannot have. However, market forces do, as the Insurance companies are in the business to make money.
It ain't the profession it used to be, and the goverment is the reason.
We all know that private insurers pay most of the balance. But the goverment's role distorts the entire marketplace. People are insulated from cost-benefit decisions, doctors routinely over-prescribe medications and services or overbill insurance companies, and there's no push-back from the marketplace.
**** But you said in paragraph one that the government pays 30%. Your statement about doctors is once again pretty wild. Is this anecdotal in nature, or do you have some statistical backing to support this. I am sure there are a tremendous amount of doctors who would question you on this. Sure there are people cheating the system, but don’t distort the facts to support your position.
Let's all remember that Government run healthcare is not the holy grail of medical care. In fact, there is none. Let's also remember that the best discipline, the greatest force for creating efficiencies and cost-reductions is free market competition. Without it, we will flounder. What we gain as individual consumers will be more than taken away by the tax man and the bureacrats.
**** Ah, here we have it, that great cure all the free market. Many right wing pundits in this country say we have the greatest health-care system in the world yet 30-40% of our population is unissured. Of the balance 60-70% how many feel that the are underinsured. Our medical system has become lop-sided to the privileged. If you have the money that can buy premium insurance or pay for it out of pocket your safe. Also, if the free market is so great why do so many other countries that subsidize their health care do some much better than us. I contend part of the problem is the free market approach that is unregulated.
Let's also remember that tort reform is ESSENTIAL to controlling medical costs as well.
**** To some extent I believe tort reform is necessary. I do not believe that some of the astronomical settlements are appropriate however, if a company is found to be quilty of negligent actions then how do you propose holding them accountable for the injure and deaths that may result. If they cannot be brought to court where a jury can hear the evidence and propose a verdict then are you proposing another Federal agency to oversee the punishment of the drug firms actions.
In fact, there are many many things we can do to foster more efficient, more effective healthcare in the United States short of handing it over to clueless, lobby-ridden bureacrats and politicians.
How about medical savings accounts? **** I like the idea but who would pay for them? Most of the people who do no have insurance do not have extra money to put into these accounts.
How about tax credits for lower income individuals to help pay for private insurace? **** Again I think this is a good idea.
How about allow free and unfettered competition between insurance companies throughout the country? **** This would be a logical step as long as there is a level oversight as to what they are offering and if in fact they are delivering the services.
How about outlawing cigarettes? **** Great idea, NOT. I am not a smoker, never have been, but have we not learned anything, once you outlaw it how are you going to police it and enforce it. This, like the war on drugs, would cost untold billions of dollars with little benefit. Are you going to throw the people in jail that smoke???
How about mandating the production of healthy foods? **** And who would mandate this and how would that be done. Federal or State edict….. more money being spent.
How about low cost financing for medical costs when the get excessive? **** I like this to some extent.
And how about limiting goverment involvement ONLY to catastrophic cases? **** How about the government helping foot the bill for catastrophic cases.
How about allowing people who choose to, to die with dignity on their own terms when they face terminal illness, rather than being "processed" against their will at the end of life, when, I believe, over 80% of all medical expenses are incurred? **** I think this is right on the money.
And for those who really NEED government sponsored medical care, how about demanding that they submit to drug tests, smoking tests, and abide by a standard sensible health regimen? **** Nothing wrong here, but are you going to turn away everyone who falls into these categories.
How about getting serious about medical tort reform, and massive class action suits that add untold billions to the cost of drugs and medical procedures? **** While I would agree that the massive class action suits are out of line I firmly believe that there needs to be some form of extensive punishment for negligence. If you think that drug companies are altruistic and are looking out entirely for the betterment of mankind then I would have to question their need to make a profit. Like any good company they are doing nothing more than providing goods and services to meet a need. As a result they should also be held totally responsible when that good or service is proven to be intentionally defective.
The goverment has made a freakin' MESS out of social security. Medicare can't even account for its expenses. We are laboring under a burder of entitlements that already consumes the lion's share of government expenditures. According to INFOPLEASE:
So about 42 percent of the federal budget is going to Social Security and subsidized health care. Other means-tested entitlements and mandatory payments and net interest on the federal debt add up to 23 percent. So, the 42 percent for Social Security and subsidized health care and the 23 percent for other entitlements and net interest equal 65 percent, or about two-thirds of total expenditures.
**** Let’s just take into account the Medicaid and Medicare pieces since this is what the original message was about. In total they add up to between 19-21 % depending on whose pie chart you look at. Additionally, the 9% you speak of in interest is also brough about by all the other spending not just the areas you mentioned above. So your numbers are a little skewed.
**** Now an interesting aside to this Federal Budget breakdown is why are we spending approximately 21.5 % of our budget on national defense ( and this does not include the offices of home land security expenditures) when that amount is greater than the next 30 countries total defense budgets. Seems to me there is a little fluff and expenditure reductions that could be had in this area. But that is another argument altogether!!!! Personnally, if we are going to spend money let’s spend it to better our own population rather than intimidate and bomb the s!!t out of someone else. What a waste of money, manpower, and talent.
Why on earth would we embark on an even BIGGER commitment when we are endanger of bankrupting the country with the entitlement programs we already have?
**** While I am a firm believer in an individual taking responsibility for their actions I also realize that the government has a place in providing a means so that individuals do not drop into proverty because of some unpredictable event or situation. Unfortunately, not everyone is as motivated or intelligent as Warren Buffett, but many folks work just as hard and long as he does and may have little to show for it. The government does have a role in providing for its citizen’s welfare now how it is done is the bone of contention.
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Let me pick up as many of your points as I can, and try to respond to them.
1. Government sponsored healthcare accounting for 30% of all healthcare spending for individual care.
I got this information online (I don't have the time to re-source it right now, but feel free to provide a counter citation if you will. I do NOT post fabrications, period.) Medicare and Medicaid spending account for about 30% of all healthcare spending in the US. Government bureacrats sets allowable payments for various treatments and services, lobbied heavily by private insurance carriers. Private insurers and HMO's follow suit. Many doctors get squeezed on the one hand. Others milk the system by ordering excessive treatments and tests. The healthcare consumer doesn't care. Someone else foots the bill -- his company, or the government. The insurance companies and the government are NOT effective proxies for the consumer. The lack of tort reform is killing doctors -- look at the cost of malpractice insurance! The medical field used to attrack the best and brightest. Now, many of them avoid it.
2. I dispute your figure of 30 to 40 percent of people being uninsured. I have heard that 30 or 40 million people don't have health insurance. We have a population of over 300 million. Of the uninsured, many are younger persons who choose NOT to pay exhorbitant rates for health insurance. (God bless them for it. If more people turned these fees down, prices would fall.) Another 10 or 15 million of the uninsured are illegal aliens. All of the uninsured can receive emergecy medical care, on demand, in any emergency room. If you are bankrupted by a medical condition, you receive Medicaid.
3. Tort reform. Again, look at malpractice insurance for doctors. Look at the massive class action suits brought against drug makers -- like the recent Voix case, where you have 70 year old diabetics with exisiting heart conditions suing Merck because they had taken the drug for 3 months and died of a heart attack. Juries regularly hand out awards in the tens, even HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in such cases. Why is this allowed to go on? If the drug manufacturer has engaged in deliberate malfeasance, PUT THEM IN JAIL! If they have followed the law and produced a drug that has had unforseen, untoward consequences, that's a different story; and I think we need tort reform to protect these vital research enterprises from unlimited liability to suit the trial lawyers lobby -- one of the most powerful, if not THE most powerful in Washington.
4. My numbers skewed? I took these number directly from INFOPLEASE. They are not skewed. My point was that entitlements are killing us. Medicare and Medicaid are, in fact, projected to be much bigger problems than even Social Security, as non-market tested medical expenses continue to spiral out of control, and the baby boomer reach their peak healthcare consuming years. What do the liberals want exactly? To subsidize healthcare for the elderly so that our children can go without educations and shoes? What kind of future do we want?
5. Individuals dropping into poverty. I disagree with this point of view. I think whether or not someone is poor is the responsibility of that individual, and not the government or other citizens. I am not responsible and do not want to be MADE responsible for the wreckless actions of other. There is a very dangerous precedent we are setting when we insulate people for the consequences of their own non-constructive behavior. That goes for people who have children out of wedlock, people who have more children than they can afford, people who buy bigger homes than they can afford, people who smoke, etc. We will have a better country and a better future when we return to the idea that the individual is responsible for making his own way, and not entitled to every kind of benefit he would otherwise have to work for. I believe we need to get vote-buying politicians OUT of our everyday affairs, and let the people get on with the business of living their lives.
6. I believe we need a strong defense. Can we buy the defense systems we need for less money? Sure. But before you start throwing in figures about other countries combined defense spending, let's remember that the Eurozone is made up of 20 or so countries, and that combined, their defense spending approaches ours. Let's also remember that the strong defense posture of the United States relieves many other countries of the burder of paying for their own defenses. Is this an area where we can have intelligent reform? Can the Europeans and the Japanese do more to insure their own security. Absolutely. But never underestimate the threats to our security that exist in this world.
.....or what was the point?
a simple checkup for starters.
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
I'm in NJ and only use Medicare. My waiting time in the office is about 5-10 minutes. I was advised by the doctor to stick with Medicare and give up any private carrier. My daughter couldn't get a doctor and she had a well known private carrier. The doctors didn't get paid for months by the carrier. My lady friend was told to leave rehab at Kessler by a her health(?) carrier although the doctors were vehement about her having to leave. She had become paralyzed on one side of her body by a spinal infection which needed a lot of rehabilitation. She was the the administrator of her health plan at her place of employment. She had to find the required treatments on her own. My daughter's girlfriend has been denied chemotherapy 3 times by her insurance carrier for a moderately rare cancer because the chemo she requires is considered experimental although it is the only treatment known at this time. Her doctors finally gave up fighting. Our system is a joke. It's come down to being lucky. Waiting for a simple checkup is not a burden although you can probably get cosmetic surgery pretty fast. You got bread...you got treatment. It's as simple as that.
Check out our mortality rates, childbirth death rates, heart attacks etc.-- not good but we do a hell of a job with death penalties.
Isn't it true that different countries use different criteria for reporting infant mortality? For example, in one country, a still birth might be counted as infant mortality, while in another, the child must be viable for a certain amount of time outside the womb to be considered "born."
x
I don't know if that' really true but it makes for good propaganda which is what we're fed constantly. We are not the healthiest country on earth no matter what numbers you prefer using. The truth is that it costs more to administer our system and that is by the hospitals not the government. You can blame lawyers, pharmaceutical companies and any other group you like but the fact remains that the system stinks the way it exists now. I used to do a lot of business in Western Europe and I never heard anybody complain about their health care. Probably because they never had much to complain about.
"In pockets of the United States, rural and urban, a confluence of market and medical forces has been widening the gap between the supply of primary care physicians and the demand for their services. Modest pay, medical school debt, an aging population and the prevalence of chronic disease have each played a role.Now in Massachusetts, in an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.
Since last year, when the landmark law took effect, about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage. Many are now searching for doctors and scheduling appointments for long-deferred care."
...people shouldn't have insurance? Does our medical system suck? I imagine the INTENDED CONSEQUENCE was that people in need of insurance should be able to receive it. Maybe Mutt Romney didn't know how to implement the program. After all he is supposed to be a mighty business man. As long as all the changes are made within the current system nothing will work. The system must change.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: