The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Health care. An open letter to the Congress of the United States

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
fatman On May 30, 2010




asheville, North Carolina
#1New Post! Sep 20, 2009 @ 18:36:04
First, let me say that I have no sympathy for insurance companies, public, private, or otherwise. I frankly believe the world would be better off without insurance for profit. It is common sense. If you profit from fear of misery and misfortune, you are highly motivated to generate as much fear of misery and misfortune as possible. No good can come of that. It is not the fear if illness and death that plagues Americans, it is the fear of the cost of combating illness and death that does so. Health insurance companies contribute nothing but the illusion of respite from that fear. The cost of that illusion is beyond the dreams of avarice.

The so-called public option is no better. Insurance executives are not stupid. After all, they are able to convince almost all of us to give them money based solely on the fact they have more money than we do in the first place. As s matter of fact, the insurance industry depends on cost being beyond the policy holder?s ability to pay. I fear, therefore, that a public option would simply become a ?dumping ground? for high- risk, and low profit customers. It would be a way for the insurance companies to weed out unprofitable and therefore highly undesirable policy holders, pass that cost to the taxpayer, and profit from the remainder. Business as usual.
It would have the effect of government protecting insurance company profit interests. The insurance companies would continue to succeed in their mandate of profit, while the government would fail in its mandate to hold those profits accountable to the interests of the People. I am convinced a public insurance ?option? would inevitably translate as ?po?folk?s only option? and further erode the sacred and elusive equity we seek through reform.

Not one to criticize without offering alternatives, here is mine: As background, I submit that government working in cooperation and concert with business at any time is a conflict of interest. The role of government is to protect the individual from the ?collateral damage? generated by highly motivated and skilled profiteers. Beyond that, there should be as few restrictions on business as possible. They cannot do that if their economic interests are common with the entity they are tasked with controlling. Separation and balance of power, such as the constitution provides for government itself is called for, and should be the model. Unless this happens first and is accepted by government as a mandate and a value, all attempts at reform in any arena will be futile.

Business has the right and responsibility to generate profit through any means available within the law. It has nor should it have any other concerns or obligations. Government has the right and the responsibility to legislate controls of said business to ensure that the direct profit interests of business are indirectly in the interests of the People. Attempts to accomplish this goal already exist in the tax structure. Control of the individual is accomplished by virtually every piece of legislation ever written. Legislation is the reason I do not make my living by hitting people over the head, and taking their wallets. I submit business should be subject to the same limitations under the law as I am. At present, they are not.

Further as background, the current health care fiasco is a matter of using the wrong tool for the job. Health care costs are not an insurance issue in the first place. It is absurd to imagine that a company who can foot the bill to restore or replace my car or my house destroyed by disaster can also foot the bill to restore or replace my health, lost a little at a time through the natural ravages of time. It is also a process that will ultimately fail. Why insurance companies are interested in underwriting an endeavor that must ultimately fail is beyond me. The maintenance of my health is a continuous ongoing process, involving associated costs. As those costs at present far outstrip my means to pay them, the problem is one of money management. I don?t know about you, but if I encounter a money management issue, I don?t call an insurance agent. I call a money manager.

I don?t like managers very much either, but in comparison to insurance agents, they are better equipped and trained to manage what has become the biggest money management problem in our nation?s history. All that is needed is a way to generate the money for them to manage. I submit that that the nation?s bills must be paid by the nation, and that the health of each American is the concern of every American. That is why the first question out of our mouths when we greet friend or stranger is invariably ?How are you?? I further submit that the money paid in those bills must go to those who do the work, not some middle man who actually contributes nothing substantial to the health care process. I therefore propose:

1. Legislate a ban on health insurance based on actuary tables and premiums on December 31st2013, at which time this plan will be implemented.
2. Require any and all companies and independent providers in the health care industry to register as such on a federal registry of healthcare professionals.
3. Provide base tax incentives for registration, and federally legislate the providing of unregistered health care services or material to any entity as a criminal offence.
4. Legislate that any American person or self-identified entity in the United States receiving money from any source will pay into a federal fund a percentage of a total amount commensurate with the amount of money they receive.
5. Mandate that the fund total will be the total amount of the previous year?s total national health care cost, plus or minus the general inflation rate, plus a maximum of 7%.
6. Only a majority vote of the governors of the fifty two states and territories can arbitrarily increase the fund?s requirements within that 7%. Any governor can call for such a vote, but to do so must provide a specific increase percentage. If more than one governor calls for an increase, the increase will be the average of the specified percentage by each governor.
7. Such calls for a vote must be within five business days of the year?s funding deadline. State legislators may mandate the conditions under which state governors can call for a vote, but may not force a governor to call for a vote.

8. Allocate those funds to the individual states in an amount based solely on population. State legislators can increase the fund amount for their individual states through legislation, and collect and add it to their state?s specific fund, but under no circumstances can they decrease that amount, or divert it to other purposes.
9. Mandate that each state hire an independent accounting firm to administer the fund, for a flat contract fee, under their state?s bidding process.
10. Federally mandate that all states pay all medical fees of their legal residents as billed from the fund.
11. If any state has a fund shortfall in a calendar year, the federal government will make up the shortfall
12. If that shortfall exceeds 2% of the total year?s fund, all nationally registered health care providers will pay an excise tax based on their percentage of the industry?s total profits to repay the shortfall in each state. If the shortfall is less than or equal to 2% of the repayment will come from the following year?s fund allocation of the specific state.
13. Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and any other federally funded health care agencies, except for the VA and the CDC on December 31st 2012. These institutions are already funded and to a greater or lesser extent work. The general health care system does not. Use the funds of these agencies to supplement the first year?s fund.
14. Any person with a social security number can then go to any doctor, hospital, dentist, or any other registered health care provider, and receive care and prescription medications without paying for anything out of pocket other than across the counter medications. .

15. Eliminate malpractice laws. They are redundant. Negligence and wrongful death are the same whether they are committed by your doctor, your barber, or your piano tuner. Less money changing hands and more jail time for grossly negligent offenders will eliminate many of the horror stories on both sides of the issue. Further, any care you may need in the future will be provided through the system, so the only case in point for such litigation is for punitive damages. Without the specter of open ended future health care costs for the plaintiff, and without the ?magic word? malpractice, juries will be less inclined to award outrageous penalties.
16. Allow any provider at any time to work outside the system, for any amount they can receive. This will ensure the super-rich will still be able to find a doctor greedy enough to be on call twenty four hours a day, and kill them graveyard dead with a powerful anesthetic on request.

Such a system would be expensive. Any system including the current de-facto fiasco is equally expensive. I am convinced that this system will in time reduce costs as the health care industry will provide direct services at the point of sale just as any other industry. So far as the daily interaction between providers and patients are concerned, the system is essentially transparent. The only differences the patients will notice are less uncertainty and less complication. The only difference the providers will notice is a drastic reduction in administrative costs, and the fact that they actually get paid for their services
By giving state governors limited control over a specific year?s funding, the lobbying efforts of special interests would have to involve a campaign across at least twenty six states, and concentrated on elected officials who do not necessarily have a dog in the Washington fight.
The system holds the healthcare industry accountable for cost increases, just as any other industry. Professional associations, stockholders boards, and institutional financial boards would be highly motivated to encourage their members to consider cost increases in the care they provide. It would soon become obvious that reform within the industry will depend on their cooperation and the adoption of industry standards, again just as any other industry. It would fall to those institutions to coordinate cost control efforts within their memberships, or collectively suffer the consequences. It is appropriate, as they are also the ones to collectively benefit from profit. Other industries will notice that that their health care costs are no longer tied to the number of people they employ, but rather on their accounts receivable. This will be passed along to consumers as a cost of doing business just as any other cost. In time this will actually cost them less. It will immediately give relief for the nearly insurmountable burden healthcare costs put on business during business downturns. As all industries pay their percentage equally, the health care responsibility of American industry will at last fall on a level playing field. Small employers will be able to recruit and retain talent competitively with large employers, who at present have an extreme advantage in their ability to provide health care benefits.

?Trickle down? does not work. ?Trickle up? has never been tried, but I suspect it won?t work either for the same reasons trickle down does not. This system relies on a lateral ripple effect, with legislation as the catalyst, and cost history as controls. The insurance industry relies on ever-increasing medical costs to make their products viable and marketable. As long as they are involved in the process, costs will never come down. A medical insurance company?s worst nightmare is the day when nobody needs or buys their product. They will use all means at their disposal to see to it that day never comes.
Under this system, health care providers will succeed or fail based solely on the quality and availability of their care. If the quality of care is poor, people simply will not show up, and the provider will be less successful. If too many show up, the availability of care will suffer, and many patients will go elsewhere for treatment. On the other hand if the provider is a good organizer and worth the wait, he or she could be wildly successful. How well the industry as a whole succeeds is based on both quality of care, and how well they hold down costs. Within the healthcare industry, it will all be about doing what it takes to get the largest slice of the fund pie as possible, without paying an excise tax that eats it all up. The health care industry will be the only industry competing for that slice.
Medical tort reform should consist of playing by the rules already in place, and eliminating redundant legislation. I am amazed that no doctor has challenged a malpractice decision on constitutional grounds, claiming double jeopardy and discrimination on the basis of his profession. I am no lawyer, but I think I could present a pretty convincing case on his behalf
Well, that?s it in a nut shell: It?s time we take care of each other because it is the right thing to do, and support businesses great and small because it is the American thing to do. Often I speak, and am not heard. Often I write, and am not read. Yet I speak and write here today, and respectfully request your consideration. I challenge you to meditate on these things as you consider legislation.

WASH On June 04, 2012




LINCOLN, California
#2New Post! Sep 20, 2009 @ 20:10:29
@fatman Said

First, let me say that I have no sympathy for insurance companies, public, private, or otherwise. I frankly believe the world would be better off without insurance for profit. It is common sense. If you profit from fear of misery and misfortune, you are highly motivated to generate as much fear of misery and misfortune as possible. No good can come of that. It is not the fear if illness and death that plagues Americans, it is the fear of the cost of combating illness and death that does so. Health insurance companies contribute nothing but the illusion of respite from that fear. The cost of that illusion is beyond the dreams of avarice.

The so-called public option is no better. Insurance executives are not stupid. After all, they are able to convince almost all of us to give them money based solely on the fact they have more money than we do in the first place. As s matter of fact, the insurance industry depends on cost being beyond the policy holder?s ability to pay. I fear, therefore, that a public option would simply become a ?dumping ground? for high- risk, and low profit customers. It would be a way for the insurance companies to weed out unprofitable and therefore highly undesirable policy holders, pass that cost to the taxpayer, and profit from the remainder. Business as usual.
It would have the effect of government protecting insurance company profit interests. The insurance companies would continue to succeed in their mandate of profit, while the government would fail in its mandate to hold those profits accountable to the interests of the People. I am convinced a public insurance ?option? would inevitably translate as ?po?folk?s only option? and further erode the sacred and elusive equity we seek through reform.

Not one to criticize without offering alternatives, here is mine: As background, I submit that government working in cooperation and concert with business at any time is a conflict of interest. The role of government is to protect the individual from the ?collateral damage? generated by highly motivated and skilled profiteers. Beyond that, there should be as few restrictions on business as possible. They cannot do that if their economic interests are common with the entity they are tasked with controlling. Separation and balance of power, such as the constitution provides for government itself is called for, and should be the model. Unless this happens first and is accepted by government as a mandate and a value, all attempts at reform in any arena will be futile.

Business has the right and responsibility to generate profit through any means available within the law. It has nor should it have any other concerns or obligations. Government has the right and the responsibility to legislate controls of said business to ensure that the direct profit interests of business are indirectly in the interests of the People. Attempts to accomplish this goal already exist in the tax structure. Control of the individual is accomplished by virtually every piece of legislation ever written. Legislation is the reason I do not make my living by hitting people over the head, and taking their wallets. I submit business should be subject to the same limitations under the law as I am. At present, they are not.

Further as background, the current health care fiasco is a matter of using the wrong tool for the job. Health care costs are not an insurance issue in the first place. It is absurd to imagine that a company who can foot the bill to restore or replace my car or my house destroyed by disaster can also foot the bill to restore or replace my health, lost a little at a time through the natural ravages of time. It is also a process that will ultimately fail. Why insurance companies are interested in underwriting an endeavor that must ultimately fail is beyond me. The maintenance of my health is a continuous ongoing process, involving associated costs. As those costs at present far outstrip my means to pay them, the problem is one of money management. I don?t know about you, but if I encounter a money management issue, I don?t call an insurance agent. I call a money manager.

I don?t like managers very much either, but in comparison to insurance agents, they are better equipped and trained to manage what has become the biggest money management problem in our nation?s history. All that is needed is a way to generate the money for them to manage. I submit that that the nation?s bills must be paid by the nation, and that the health of each American is the concern of every American. That is why the first question out of our mouths when we greet friend or stranger is invariably ?How are you?? I further submit that the money paid in those bills must go to those who do the work, not some middle man who actually contributes nothing substantial to the health care process. I therefore propose:

1. Legislate a ban on health insurance based on actuary tables and premiums on December 31st2013, at which time this plan will be implemented.
2. Require any and all companies and independent providers in the health care industry to register as such on a federal registry of healthcare professionals.
3. Provide base tax incentives for registration, and federally legislate the providing of unregistered health care services or material to any entity as a criminal offence.
4. Legislate that any American person or self-identified entity in the United States receiving money from any source will pay into a federal fund a percentage of a total amount commensurate with the amount of money they receive.
5. Mandate that the fund total will be the total amount of the previous year?s total national health care cost, plus or minus the general inflation rate, plus a maximum of 7%.
6. Only a majority vote of the governors of the fifty two states and territories can arbitrarily increase the fund?s requirements within that 7%. Any governor can call for such a vote, but to do so must provide a specific increase percentage. If more than one governor calls for an increase, the increase will be the average of the specified percentage by each governor.
7. Such calls for a vote must be within five business days of the year?s funding deadline. State legislators may mandate the conditions under which state governors can call for a vote, but may not force a governor to call for a vote.

8. Allocate those funds to the individual states in an amount based solely on population. State legislators can increase the fund amount for their individual states through legislation, and collect and add it to their state?s specific fund, but under no circumstances can they decrease that amount, or divert it to other purposes.
9. Mandate that each state hire an independent accounting firm to administer the fund, for a flat contract fee, under their state?s bidding process.
10. Federally mandate that all states pay all medical fees of their legal residents as billed from the fund.
11. If any state has a fund shortfall in a calendar year, the federal government will make up the shortfall
12. If that shortfall exceeds 2% of the total year?s fund, all nationally registered health care providers will pay an excise tax based on their percentage of the industry?s total profits to repay the shortfall in each state. If the shortfall is less than or equal to 2% of the repayment will come from the following year?s fund allocation of the specific state.
13. Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and any other federally funded health care agencies, except for the VA and the CDC on December 31st 2012. These institutions are already funded and to a greater or lesser extent work. The general health care system does not. Use the funds of these agencies to supplement the first year?s fund.
14. Any person with a social security number can then go to any doctor, hospital, dentist, or any other registered health care provider, and receive care and prescription medications without paying for anything out of pocket other than across the counter medications. .

15. Eliminate malpractice laws. They are redundant. Negligence and wrongful death are the same whether they are committed by your doctor, your barber, or your piano tuner. Less money changing hands and more jail time for grossly negligent offenders will eliminate many of the horror stories on both sides of the issue. Further, any care you may need in the future will be provided through the system, so the only case in point for such litigation is for punitive damages. Without the specter of open ended future health care costs for the plaintiff, and without the ?magic word? malpractice, juries will be less inclined to award outrageous penalties.
16. Allow any provider at any time to work outside the system, for any amount they can receive. This will ensure the super-rich will still be able to find a doctor greedy enough to be on call twenty four hours a day, and kill them graveyard dead with a powerful anesthetic on request.

Such a system would be expensive. Any system including the current de-facto fiasco is equally expensive. I am convinced that this system will in time reduce costs as the health care industry will provide direct services at the point of sale just as any other industry. So far as the daily interaction between providers and patients are concerned, the system is essentially transparent. The only differences the patients will notice are less uncertainty and less complication. The only difference the providers will notice is a drastic reduction in administrative costs, and the fact that they actually get paid for their services
By giving state governors limited control over a specific year?s funding, the lobbying efforts of special interests would have to involve a campaign across at least twenty six states, and concentrated on elected officials who do not necessarily have a dog in the Washington fight.
The system holds the healthcare industry accountable for cost increases, just as any other industry. Professional associations, stockholders boards, and institutional financial boards would be highly motivated to encourage their members to consider cost increases in the care they provide. It would soon become obvious that reform within the industry will depend on their cooperation and the adoption of industry standards, again just as any other industry. It would fall to those institutions to coordinate cost control efforts within their memberships, or collectively suffer the consequences. It is appropriate, as they are also the ones to collectively benefit from profit. Other industries will notice that that their health care costs are no longer tied to the number of people they employ, but rather on their accounts receivable. This will be passed along to consumers as a cost of doing business just as any other cost. In time this will actually cost them less. It will immediately give relief for the nearly insurmountable burden healthcare costs put on business during business downturns. As all industries pay their percentage equally, the health care responsibility of American industry will at last fall on a level playing field. Small employers will be able to recruit and retain talent competitively with large employers, who at present have an extreme advantage in their ability to provide health care benefits.

?Trickle down? does not work. ?Trickle up? has never been tried, but I suspect it won?t work either for the same reasons trickle down does not. This system relies on a lateral ripple effect, with legislation as the catalyst, and cost history as controls. The insurance industry relies on ever-increasing medical costs to make their products viable and marketable. As long as they are involved in the process, costs will never come down. A medical insurance company?s worst nightmare is the day when nobody needs or buys their product. They will use all means at their disposal to see to it that day never comes.
Under this system, health care providers will succeed or fail based solely on the quality and availability of their care. If the quality of care is poor, people simply will not show up, and the provider will be less successful. If too many show up, the availability of care will suffer, and many patients will go elsewhere for treatment. On the other hand if the provider is a good organizer and worth the wait, he or she could be wildly successful. How well the industry as a whole succeeds is based on both quality of care, and how well they hold down costs. Within the healthcare industry, it will all be about doing what it takes to get the largest slice of the fund pie as possible, without paying an excise tax that eats it all up. The health care industry will be the only industry competing for that slice.
Medical tort reform should consist of playing by the rules already in place, and eliminating redundant legislation. I am amazed that no doctor has challenged a malpractice decision on constitutional grounds, claiming double jeopardy and discrimination on the basis of his profession. I am no lawyer, but I think I could present a pretty convincing case on his behalf
Well, that?s it in a nut shell: It?s time we take care of each other because it is the right thing to do, and support businesses great and small because it is the American thing to do. Often I speak, and am not heard. Often I write, and am not read. Yet I speak and write here today, and respectfully request your consideration. I challenge you to meditate on these things as you consider legislation.



Better than any bill on the floor of Congress!
KayluhhKHAOS On October 31, 2009




,
#3New Post! Sep 20, 2009 @ 20:19:01
Obviously, insurance shouldn't be something that companies use to make a quick buck off of, unless somehow it's right to profit from people's injuries and sicknesses. That is a sick thought in itself. I agree with what you're saying.
WeNowSix On January 05, 2011

Deleted



Anaheim, California
#4New Post! Sep 20, 2009 @ 20:43:58
Firefighters, police officers, doctors, hospitals, and nurses profit from fear and misery. Maybe we should ban those professions. Teachers profit from ignorance. Damn them for that.
fatman On May 30, 2010




asheville, North Carolina
#5New Post! Sep 20, 2009 @ 20:53:31
@WeNowSix Said

Firefighters, police officers, doctors, hospitals, and nurses profit from fear and misery. Maybe we should ban those professions. Teachers profit from ignorance. Damn them for that.



Read carefully, please. Insurance companies profit from the fear OF misery and misfortune. Their stock in trade is fear and fear alone. The fine folks you mention profit from the alleviation of the fear, misery, and ignorance by doing something about them directly.

Edit: I do not propose a ban on insurance in general, although my personal feelings are very strong about the industry. I do propose they get out of the health care business. To start, it is a no-win situation for them. Ultimately, every single one off their customers will ultimately file a claim, or discontinue their policy. EVERY ONE!! There are simply not enough of us to drop dead in perfect health to balance it out. Why would they subject themselves to that?
WeNowSix On January 05, 2011

Deleted



Anaheim, California
#6New Post! Sep 21, 2009 @ 01:00:59
@fatman Said

Read carefully, please. Insurance companies profit from the fear OF misery and misfortune. Their stock in trade is fear and fear alone. The fine folks you mention profit from the alleviation of the fear, misery, and ignorance by doing something about them directly.

Edit: I do not propose a ban on insurance in general, although my personal feelings are very strong about the industry. I do propose they get out of the health care business. To start, it is a no-win situation for them. Ultimately, every single one off their customers will ultimately file a claim, or discontinue their policy. EVERY ONE!! There are simply not enough of us to drop dead in perfect health to balance it out. Why would they subject themselves to that?



Well; surprise, surprise. I disagree. Whodathunkit? All transactions, not only insurance transactions, involve both fear of loss, commonly known as anxiety, or fear of not gaining, commonly known as greed.
sAeGeSpAeNe On October 05, 2021
Part-time Nidologist





The other Bristol..., Connecti
#7New Post! Sep 21, 2009 @ 02:10:22
@KayluhhKHAOS Said

Obviously, insurance shouldn't be something that companies use to make a quick buck off of, unless somehow it's right to profit from people's injuries and sicknesses. That is a sick thought in itself. I agree with what you're saying.



But the insurance industry does not "profit from peoples injuries and sicknesses."

The insurance industry is driven by accountants, statisticians and mathematicians. Just like it is with the life insurance companies, the health-insurance companies are making a bet with you.

They are betting that you will stay healthy, and you are betting that you will be getting sick. As long as you remain healthy, they win the bet. They keep the premium. You don't get it back. Their profits increase, because they also arrive at agreements with groups of doctors, hospitals, and other 'care-givers' to establish certain 'rates' for that precious care. Those rates are lower than the advertised 'open-market' rates,...

For instance, a hospital might charge $XX for an MRI or an X-Ray procedure. If you walk into an ER, without insurance, and need to have an X-Ray taken, it will cost you, the uninsured, $XX, which is more that what the hospital has already agreed to accept from any of the medical insurance companies.

The doctors and hospitals see their 'income' constantly being reduced or placed in jeopardy by the medical insurance companies practices. Couple this together with the ever-increasing medical mal-practice insurance premiums that hospitals and doctors have to shell out, and it becomes a lose-or-lose-big situation. So the costs of medical care continue to rise, in order to 'maintain' a certain profit margin. If there was no profit margin, there would be no incentive for a doctor to maintain his practice, or an association of doctors to run a hospital.

The other thing that drives up the cost, at a hospital, is the ever increasing number of 'uninsured' that show up at the ER, looking for treatment. A staggering number of these people are unable to pay for the treatment they receive. They are on welfare, perhaps, or have lost their job, and their insurance coverage, or they are illegals who just play the system to obtain 'free health-care' when they get sick. So, once again, the shortage in income is made up by increasing the procedural charging rates for medical care.

Insurance companies do not get rich, off peoples injuries and sicknesses.
fatman On May 30, 2010




asheville, North Carolina
#8New Post! Sep 21, 2009 @ 02:33:34
@WeNowSix Said

Well; surprise, surprise. I disagree. Whodathunkit? All transactions, not only insurance transactions, involve both fear of loss, commonly known as anxiety, or fear of not gaining, commonly known as greed.



Exception noted: Please state your case in logical, concise, and detailed form. How would you reform health care? What does the insurance industry contribute to health care other than money?
WeNowSix On January 05, 2011

Deleted



Anaheim, California
#9New Post! Sep 21, 2009 @ 12:12:39
@fatman Said

Exception noted: Please state your case in logical, concise, and detailed form. How would you reform health care? What does the insurance industry contribute to health care other than money?



In my opinion, health care needs no reformation. It had its reformation one hundred years ago when the University of Chicago asked John D Rockefeller for money to build a medical school. He told them that he would not give them money for a medical school, but he would give them money for medical research. Somebody had told him that doctors had become expert in diagnosis, but mostly doctors could not cure anything. He asked them to find cures. In the last one hundred years, Rockefeller's money and money from people like him has reformed health care.

Insurance is not about health care; except as you have pointed out, both are about fear of loss.

Insurance is not about health care. Insurance is about money and property. People buy insurance to protect their property. Liability insurance pays for litigation and lawsuits. Health insurance pays doctor bills. People with no money or property do not need insurance because they have no property for judgments or hospitals to take.
WeNowSix On January 05, 2011

Deleted



Anaheim, California
#10New Post! Sep 21, 2009 @ 22:32:07
@Saegespaene Said


The doctors and hospitals see their 'income' constantly being reduced increasing the procedural charging rates for medical care.



My doctor's practice involves mostly things not covered by insurance. Most of her patients, including some of the women in my family, are women. She makes us pretty. Insurance companies don't pay for that. She treats me for high blood pressure. Probably, I'm her only medicare patient.
sAeGeSpAeNe On October 05, 2021
Part-time Nidologist





The other Bristol..., Connecti
#11New Post! Sep 22, 2009 @ 01:54:51
@WeNowSix Said

My doctor's practice involves mostly things not covered by insurance. Most of her patients, including some of the women in my family, are women. She makes us pretty. Insurance companies don't pay for that. She treats me for high blood pressure. Probably, I'm her only medicare patient.


That's nice! But, surely you realize, that you are not being treated for a medical condition, by your 'make-me-pretty doctor,' if there are adjustments being made to your physical appearance. Typically, cosmetic surgery and such similar 'practices' are not covered by regular health insurance. A prescription for a drug, like Lisinopril, for instance, may help to combat or reduce high blood pressure, and such a medication would be covered.

Are you advocating for a change in the medical insurance industry, forcing the insurance companies to jump in to cover these medically unnecessary expenses? To do so would only raise the overall rates for everyone. The health-care reform is supposed to save money and reduce costs.

Also, on a different note, it would be appreciated if, when you quote me, my words are not cut-and-spliced in such a fashion as to say something that a) I did not write, and b) that, by its very presentation implies that I am incapable of using correct grammatical punctuation.

@This is what,in a preceding posting, I Said



The doctors and hospitals see their 'income' constantly being reduced or placed in jeopardy by the medical insurance companies practices. Couple this together with the ever-increasing medical mal-practice insurance premiums that hospitals and doctors have to shell out, and it becomes a lose-or-lose-big situation. So the costs of medical care continue to rise, in order to 'maintain' a certain profit margin. If there was no profit margin, there would be no incentive for a doctor to maintain his practice, or an association of doctors to run a hospital.

The other thing that drives up the cost, at a hospital, is the ever increasing number of 'uninsured' that show up at the ER, looking for treatment. A staggering number of these people are unable to pay for the treatment they receive. They are on welfare, perhaps, or have lost their job, and their insurance coverage, or they are illegals who just play the system to obtain 'free health-care' when they get sick. So, once again, the shortage in income is made up by increasing the procedural charging rates for medical care.


And this is how you have short-circuited and twisted my words:

@Saegespaene Said

The doctors and hospitals see their 'income' constantly being reduced increasing the procedural charging rates for medical care.


This latter 'statement' which you have cobbled together with some creatively overzealous editing, makes no logical sense, and is definitely not a reflection of my sentiments, opinions, or knowledge. You are perpetrating a hoax.
WeNowSix On January 05, 2011

Deleted



Anaheim, California
#12New Post! Sep 22, 2009 @ 03:18:58
@Saegespaene Said

That's nice! But, surely you realize, that you are not being treated for a medical condition, by your 'make-me-pretty doctor,' if there are adjustments being made to your physical appearance. Typically, cosmetic surgery and such similar 'practices' are not covered by regular health insurance. A prescription for a drug, like Lisinopril, for instance, may help to combat or reduce high blood pressure, and such a medication would be covered.

Are you advocating for a change in the medical insurance industry, forcing the insurance companies to jump in to cover these medically unnecessary expenses? To do so would only raise the overall rates for everyone. The health-care reform is supposed to save money and reduce costs.

Also, on a different note, it would be appreciated if, when you quote me, my words are not cut-and-spliced in such a fashion as to say something that a) I did not write, and b) that, by its very presentation implies that I am incapable of using correct grammatical punctuation.



And this is how you have short-circuited and twisted my words:



This latter 'statement' which you have cobbled together with some creatively overzealous editing, makes no logical sense, and is definitely not a reflection of my sentiments, opinions, or knowledge. You are perpetrating a hoax.



I think you've got it right. If I cobbled (not sure what than means) anything, I hope your explanation has set it right. I meant to offer my doctor as an example of how a doctor might change the practice to avoid insurance companies. My doctor deliberately doesn't accept medicare or medicaid patients. She bills medicare for me, because I and many women I know, paid her to fix our faces. The first time she tried to bill medicare, she waited more than a year to get her money.

Most doctors or at least their billing secretaries love medicare because it pays promptly. Maybe the doctors don't like the low reimbursement.

Anyway, my doctor is an example of how medical practice will change if the government becomes the only insurance company. To avoid the insurance companies or perhaps in the future the government insurance company, she markets her services to people who want services not covered by insurance.

Her treatment of my high blood pressure is sort of a sideline.

I wonder if requiring covering preexisting health conditions might be possible. It might work the way bad drivers get liability insurance. I expect it might increase the premiums, but if it were a shared liability like with with automobile insurance it might work.

I think some Democrats might support some kind tort reform. I know that trial lawyers are mostly Democrats so tort reform could be an impossible item for them, but the public is really focused on what it calls eliminating fraud and abuse. The abuse is really tort reform in simple language.

Maybe those two things, preexisting conditions and tort reform, are areas of change; but like I said in a previous post, I'm not upset that poor people don't have health insurance. Poor people have no assets to protect, so they don't need insurance.
fatman On May 30, 2010




asheville, North Carolina
#13New Post! Sep 22, 2009 @ 04:12:16
@WeNowSix Said

In my opinion, health care needs no reformation. It had its reformation one hundred years ago when the University of Chicago asked John D Rockefeller for money to build a medical school. He told them that he would not give them money for a medical school, but he would give them money for medical research. Somebody had told him that doctors had become expert in diagnosis, but mostly doctors could not cure anything. He asked them to find cures. In the last one hundred years, Rockefeller's money and money from people like him has reformed health care.

Insurance is not about health care; except as you have pointed out, both are about fear of loss.

Insurance is not about health care. Insurance is about money and property. People buy insurance to protect their property. Liability insurance pays for litigation and lawsuits. Health insurance pays doctor bills. People with no money or property do not need insurance because they have no property for judgments or hospitals to take.



I would agree that insurance SHOULD not be about health care, but the fact is it has become health care. In 2008 the wheels came off of the insurance based health care payment system. We are now sitting on a health insurance bubble. When it bursts none of the noble people you mentioned will get paid. That is the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention!
The problem exists, because the math simply does not support such a system. A person's health care begins in the womb, and continues throughout his or her life. That health is absolutely certain to fail at some point, and most probably over an extended period of time. How does that present profitability in any actuary table?
The purpose of health care is to stave off that inevitability for as long as possible. My health has absolutely no added value to anyone but me, so nobody but me can possibly profit from its maintenance. There is no way to insure against the inevitable, so the insurer simply cannot pay the doctor bills and remain profitable. I am convinced the health insurance industry is aware of this at least on some level, but they do not see a way out! They MUST get out before they collapse, and take virtually every American's access to health care with them. For their sake and ours, they have to find another way to make a living! Starving doctors and nurses cannot take care of anyone! I cannot state the problem more plainly than that!
WeNowSix On January 05, 2011

Deleted



Anaheim, California
#14New Post! Sep 22, 2009 @ 11:57:16
@fatman Said

I would agree that insurance SHOULD not be about health care, but the fact is it has become health care. In 2008 the wheels came off of the insurance based health care payment system. We are now sitting on a health insurance bubble. When it bursts none of the noble people you mentioned will get paid. That is the elephant in the room nobody dares to mention!
The problem exists, because the math simply does not support such a system. A person's health care begins in the womb, and continues throughout his or her life. That health is absolutely certain to fail at some point, and most probably over an extended period of time. How does that present profitability in any actuary table?
The purpose of health care is to stave off that inevitability for as long as possible. My health has absolutely no added value to anyone but me, so nobody but me can possibly profit from its maintenance. There is no way to insure against the inevitable, so the insurer simply cannot pay the doctor bills and remain profitable. I am convinced the health insurance industry is aware of this at least on some level, but they do not see a way out! They MUST get out before they collapse, and take virtually every American's access to health care with them. For their sake and ours, they have to find another way to make a living! Starving doctors and nurses cannot take care of anyone! I cannot state the problem more plainly than that!



I volunteer in a public high school, and I sometimes sit in an American Government class. A couple of weeks ago, when the teachers asked the students, "Who elects the president?" a student said, "The insurance companies."

8)

Maybe that's true, but the standard answer is the Electoral College.

For a long time, people have made jokes about how the insurance companies control not only health care, but also the nation. In the 1950's the joke was to ask, who owns the United States, and the answer was to say, the insurance companies. In the 1980's the answer was Saudi Arabia or many Japan. Now the answer is China. When I was a teenager the answer was Morgan or Rockefeller.

My doctor and I have done fund raising for a hospital that was born in a time when nuns controlled health care. Nuns, the Sisters of Charity, founded the hospital.

And, of course you are correct. As the price of a thing increases, some people buy less of it. Even the insurance companies or the government can't repeal the laws of economics. They can't say that some people might not get less, but they might be able to decide who is in the less.

One thing to note is that even though demand makes things expensive, competition and technology make things cheap. Many medical things, for example drugs like metformin and clonidine, are way less expensive now than they were a few years ago. Clonidine has an expensive form that one can use once a week or a less expensive form, which one can use every few hours. The older form is probably cheaper than candy. So prices do go down, even for health care.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Tue Jan 10, 2012 @ 00:54
0 582
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Thu Mar 17, 2011 @ 01:46
4 1060
New posts   Politics
Sun Dec 27, 2009 @ 06:13
15 2230
New posts   Health & Fitness
Thu Oct 29, 2009 @ 23:13
4 920
New posts   Politics
Sat Oct 03, 2009 @ 16:16
1 655