Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 128
  1. #81  
    I agree. It's not worth discussing with you. My last comment to you on the matter is that I have never said states shouldn't handle it, as long as they take care of people. I'll say it just one last time: I don't care how it's done. States, federal, Medicare, public option. Makes no difference....as long as it's done. Like most republicans and apologists for the insurance industry for which you work, you have no solutions and you refuse to admit it. I know exactly what's important to me, and it's clearly not what's important to you, so I don't see interactions with you to be worth my time, frankly.
    Last edited by davidra; 02/10/2011 at 05:56 AM.
  2.    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I agree. It's not worth discussing with you. My last comment to you on the matter is that I have never said states shouldn't handle it, as long as they take care of people. I'll say it just one last time: I don't care how it's done. States, federal, Medicare, public option. Makes no difference....as long as it's done. Like most republicans and apologists for the insurance industry for which you work, you have no solutions and you refuse to admit it. I know exactly what's important to me, and it's clearly not what's important to you, so I don't see interactions with you to be worth my time, frankly.
    I always love how you say things like "it's not worth discussing with you" and then you have to add one more thing, LOL. Typical physician. Good grief. I will say, you would make one good dictator.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And exactly how does that solve our problems? Or do you care?
    Absolutely I care! That's why I've posted so many times in the hc related threads. And you've not noticed that I've actually offered up ideas? You may not agree with them, and that's fine of course. But I assure you, I care and am willing to try different ideas for lowering costs and helping more get the healthcare we need. The fundamental difference in each of our approaches, as I see it, is that you're for a centralized government controled solution, and I'm for a more individual/doctor driven approach.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4.    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Absolutely I care! That's why I've posted so many times in the hc related threads. And you've not noticed that I've actually offered up ideas? You may not agree with them, and that's fine of course. But I assure you, I care and am willing to try different ideas for lowering costs and helping more get the healthcare we need. The fundamental difference in each of our approaches, as I see it, is that you're for a centralized government controled solution, and I'm for a more individual/doctor driven approach.
    Well written Micael....I think if an idea is different from "government controlled healthcare", davidra puts you in the camp of "no ideas and want to kill people". Heck, I believe you and I even disagree on letting the States have some control over healthcare, and that's fine, we can disagree but we don't point fingers at each other and say "you don't care".
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Absolutely I care! That's why I've posted so many times in the hc related threads. And you've not noticed that I've actually offered up ideas? You may not agree with them, and that's fine of course. But I assure you, I care and am willing to try different ideas for lowering costs and helping more get the healthcare we need. The fundamental difference in each of our approaches, as I see it, is that you're for a centralized government controled solution, and I'm for a more individual/doctor driven approach.
    See, that's not exactly right. I am for an approach that covers everybody that needs to be covered, immediately. That is my gold standard. The problem with your solutions, as well as the health care bill, is that neither of them solves the problem. It's just that the health care bill comes a helluva lot closer than tort reform and selling across state borders and HSA's and direct payment plans. Not ONE of those things has ever been shown to actually enable the country to provide more insurance to people that need it. You come up with a solution and I would be delighted if it used the private sector. My entire historical experience tells me not to hold my breath. Between doctors being coddled by congress, who have refused to control Medicare payments, and the for-profit greed and inefficiency of insurance companies, it's not going to happen any way except for some kind of publically supported program...like Medicare for all. I would gladly support an alternative, but there isn't one. And the closest existing plan that has been demonstrated to actually work by quickly providing coverage to all that need it? Romney-care, which of course is identical to the health care bill.
  6.    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Between doctors being coddled by congress, who have refused to control Medicare payments, and the for-profit greed and inefficiency of insurance companies
    Ummm....let's not forget to add the greed factor into the mix for doctors, hospitals, and other providers. As you know, it's the providers that fight to negotiate their fees lower in the networks. It was the provider who billed my insurance company $1500 for a back brace. No greed there, huh?


    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    .....it's not going to happen any way except for some kind of publically supported program...like Medicare for all.
    Is the efficient Medicare what you are saying will replace the "ineffecient" insurance companies? Really? If they are so efficient, how is that they operate in the red and there are all these dates in the future where they will be bankrupt? Let me guess, you are one of the few that agree with senator reid that everything is fine with Medicare and Social Security. No problems, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I would gladly support an alternative, but there isn't one. And the closest existing plan that has been demonstrated to actually work by quickly providing coverage to all that need it? Romney-care, which of course is identical to the health care bill.
    Which is one reason Romney will struggle to get the Republican nod, because he has that hanging around his neck. In his defense, there is a big difference between a State requiring health care and the Fed Government. I don't know much about the plan, but not sure if he can shake it. The few things I've heard, it isn't going very well.

    An interesting article on it (not from WSJ): 5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - Jun. 15, 2010

    Some interesting quotes:

    "Instead of attacking the real causes of the explosion in costs -- the combination of overly generous state aid and a dearth of competition among hospitals and physician groups -- Massachusetts is vilifying prestigious, non-profit insurers, and punishing them, believe it nor not, with price controls. In April, Governor Deval Patrick refused the request of carriers such as Harvard Pilgrim, the top-rated plan in the country, for premium increases of 8% to 32%. Instead, his administration is refusing all rate hikes over 7.7%; any rate requests the administration rejects are automatically held at 2009 levels."

    "The battle in Massachusetts may foreshadow the results of the new federal law. It threatens to mirror precisely the cycle we're witnessing in the Bay State: spiraling costs that make coverage unaffordable for both patients and businesses, followed by price controls that drive private providers from the market. "This could repeat itself on the national level, and become the beginning of government-run health care," says Lora Pellegrini, chief of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans."

    So, as I've said many, many times.....obama's goal was for his plan to FAIL. When it fails, guess what comes? Your precious government run health care! Which guess what that means? Our country takes on even more debt and God help us if that happens. I guess we'll all be happy living to 120, but with high interest rates, high taxes, massive debt, and inflation through the roof, we may opt to check out early.

    Or even worse:
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And exactly how does that solve our problems? Or do you care?
    It is impossible to have a productive debate with you unless you are able to separate solving the problem from the requirement that only the government can solve it. So I'll say this and then let you enjoy the continued tail chasing without me.

    We know there is a problem. We care about the problem. We want to solve the problem. We believe that the more the federal government involvement, the less likely the problem will be solved and the more unintended consequences will cause collateral damage. We don't agree on what the problem is.

    I believe the problem is that health care costs way too much, is too expensive for manypeople to buy, and isn't sustainable in the current form.

    You seem to think that the problem with health care is the lack of government involvement. That's like saying the cause of headaches are caused by a Tylenol deficiency. Or that being sleepy is caused by a caffeine deficiency.

    We can't make any more progress because you cling to several incorrect principles:

    1. The problem is that everyone doesn't have insurance.
    2. Any viable solution starts with the federal government.
    3. Non of us have the knowledge to have informed opinions. Any experience or logical thought is dismissed as anecdotal, easily said because we obviously have never lost someone or been around people who have.
    4. The end justifies the means. So arbitrary control of personal income, govt entitlements that will bankrupt the country, and willingness to abandon the constitution are ok if it serves a purpose.

    i would say that:

    1. The problem is high costs spiraling higher. Lower costs make them more affordable.
    2. The probability of solving any problem is inversely proportional to the amount of federal involvement
    3. There are a lot of really smart people here. Educated, with many life experiences, with the ability to balance a check book, and a belief in the rule of law.
    4. A strong conviction that obamacare has the highest possible probability of not solving the problem, actually making it worse, and creating even larger problems. Solving the problem should begin with the assumption of no federal involvement and only add a dash of washington when there is absolutley no one else that can do something.

    We can debate each of those individually. But if you insist that they be combined into a single omnibus debate, there is no point in pretending we are having are listening or discussing.

    Omnibus, all-or-nothing, dismissing any alternative opinion or person that holds a different viewpoint. Sound familiar? Have you thought of running for congress? You'd fit in perfectly.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/14/2011 at 09:45 AM.
  8. #88  
    Ps, the offer still stands that we can agree to limit each other's income... still waiting...
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    It is impossible to have a productive debate with you unless you are able to separate solving the problem from the requirement that only the government can solve it. So I'll say this and then let you enjoy the continued tail chasing without me.

    We know there is a problem. We care about the problem. We want to solve the problem. We believe that the more the federal government involvement, the less likely the problem will be solved and the more unintended consequences will cause collateral damage. We don't agree on what the problem is.

    I believe the problem is that health care costs way too much, is too expensive, and isn't sustainable in the current form.

    You seem to think that the problem with health care is the lack of government involvement. That's like saying the cause of headaches are caused by a Tylenol deficiency. Or that being sleepy is caused by a caffeine deficiency.

    We can't make any more progress because you cling to several incorrect principles:

    1. The problem is that everyone doesn't have insurance.
    2. Any viable solution starts with the federal government.
    3. Non of us have the knowledge to have informed opinions. Any experience or logical thought is dismissed as anecdotal, easily said because we obviously have never lost someone or been around people who have.
    4. The end justifies the means. So arbitrary control of personal income, govt entitlements that will bankrupt the country, and willingness to abandon the constitution are ok if it serves a purpose.

    i would say that:

    1. The problem is high costs spiraling higher. Lower costs make them more affordable.
    2. The probability of solving any problem is inversely proportional to the amount of federal involvement
    3. There are a lot of really smart people here. Educated, with many life experiences, with the ability to balance a check book, and a belief in the rule of law.
    4. A strong conviction that obamacare has the highest possible probability of not solving the problem, actually making it worse, and creating even larger problems. Solving the problem should begin with the assumption of no federal involvement and only add a dash of washington when there is absolutley no one else that can do something.

    We can debate each of those individually. But if you insist that they be combined into a single omnibus debate, there is no point in pretending we are having are listening or discussing.

    Omnibus, all-or-nothing, dismissing any alternative opinion or person that holds a different viewpoint. Sound familiar? Have you thought of running for congress? You'd fit in perfectly.

    I find it interesting that you can read my posts and totally ignore what I said. I am totally willing to have a non-governmental solution to the problem. You just can't give me one. I do NOT think the problem with health care is the lack of government involvement. I have never said or even intimated that. The problem with health care is that it costs too much, that not everyone is covered, and that those that are covered end up paying excessively for those who are not. Additionally, hospitals in urban areas are constantly destitute because of the amount of indigent care they provide that doesn't get reimbursed. That results in poor service and poor quality care. Abandoning the constitution? The health care bill is unconstitutional in your opinion, not mine, and in the opinion of a minority of judges that have had it come before them. And half of the country thinks it's just fine, and a majority favor many parts of it. "Arbitrary control of personal finances" is a misnomer. If you are referring to a mandate, that's not what I would consider it....it's what YOU consider it. Please try and separate your opinions from the true definitions of things. That might help. As far as your opinions,
    I agree with number 1.
    Number 2? Consider what has happened to the health of the elderly, a third of whom were in poverty before Medicare. Their improvement in health status mirrors access to care....through Medicare. And they are satisfied with it, more satisfied than with the public system.
    3. I believe that to be true. That doesn't mean that they understand the health care system, and it especially doesn't mean they understand what it means to be sick and to be unable to obtain care. There are lots of things I know nothing about, and while I may have opinions, I wouldn't consider them learned or appropriate.
    4. Fine....again I say let's hear your solution with a "dash of Washington". Solve the problem. I'll be right there with you.
  10. #90  
    I didn't ignore you. I gave you many solution ideas. You dismissed all of them because I am not qualified to understand the issue, the complexities, etc.

    The fact that I put together ideas that made mathmatical sense even though I'm not qualifies and I don't have a building of accountants... they were a good start from a regular guy with a calculator. You dismissed them out of hand.

    So add that to the things preventing an intelligent conversation. I spend HOURS over several days sketching out high level ideas based on my education, business experience, understanding of human nature, etc. I made a high level case, I made the numbers work, and you dismissed them out of hand.

    You think I did nothing of value (you even confirmed that a few posts back). No point in putting effort in to this if you will just ignore it. Because my ideas didn't me1t your requirements for the points listed above - you equate that to me not having offered any solutions.

    Did too. Did not. Did too. Dd not. Sounds like preschool - or congress...

    I already took a better than average shot at providing you with options. Feel free to refer back to those threads and read them.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 02/14/2011 at 09:43 AM.
  11. #91  
    Just so you know, I have attempted to find your prior posts by searching which didn't work, but I will try again tomorrow to locate them. Before I comment I would like to see them again. What I do remember is that they were based on, as you state, theoretical calculations based on projections. That is unfortunately the situation for most of the conservative approaches to health care financing. They are based on what might happen and will work only if a number of assumptions are correct...and by "work" I mean providing high quality health care for all. That is the sticking point, in that I would start with that standard. Expanding Medicare gradually by lowering the age of optional entry, adding copays, decreasing physician reimbursement, will at some point result in everyone being covered. That isn't a theory, any more than Medicare providing care for seniors and the disabled is a theory; it's reality. If you replace Medicare with exchanges run by private insurers and the insurers are either required to cover everyone or are willing to take Medicaid-like reimbursement for those who can't afford co-pays, or those who are emergently ill, fine. Let private insurers take it over....as long as they stop denying coverage, canceling policies because of minor inaccuracies on forms, etc. As long as everyone is covered, I don't care how it's done. The difference between us is more that you really don't believe that everyone should be covered as the highest priority, and I do.
    Last edited by davidra; 02/11/2011 at 06:50 AM.
  12.    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As long as everyone is covered, I don't care how it's done.
    But do you care if it is done regardless of the cost? That is what you are saying, correct? If it sent our country spiralling down, you would be okay with that, correct? This is the main difference between you and me....you have blinders on.....cover everyone regardless of the cost to the country. Refer to that article I posted yesterday from Money/CNN regarding the Massachusetts plan. It ain't working and costs are rising. You keep saying "we" never offer an option, but your only option is Medicare for everyone. How long could we support that financially? You seem to totally disregard cost.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    That statement makes no sense....sorry X....please explain how the insurance companies BEING BILLED so much for services by the doctors/hospitals reflects on them? This is just crazy. You do realize the insurance companies don't keep the money they are billed, right? You realize if the greedy doctor charges $5000 for that "simple break, xray and cast" that the insurance company sends that money to the providers, right? It's these ridiculous costs (the $5000) that dictates the premiums the insurance company charges.

    Insurance companies actually try and "negotiate" lower rates with the providers. That is why when my doctor billed the insurance company $1500 for the back brace, they "only" sent a check to the physician for $804. They had negotiated that rate down. I was mad my insurance company paid that! So please, explain your comment as I just don't understand your thinking on that.
    That number was based on what others told me,, an assumption only. based on that number, the insurance companies set their rates, based on that number and actual number of breaks a given person would have in their "insured life time". This is why I said, no wonder the insurance companies want to kill off obamacare.
    Look at it this way, your fellow workers, all pay say 1000 a month for insurance, forget the co-pays and deductibles, and so on, i have 400 fellow employees, if even two a year break a limb its going to cost ohhh say 8 grand complete. now, i understand that it covers other things as well. but the total take for an insurance company just off of me and my fellow employees is 4,800,000.00 per year. hmmmm ya like i said, there are other costs. I wonder though, just how many 10,000.00 staplers are put to expense each year... hmmm
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  14.    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    That number was based on what others told me,, an assumption only. based on that number, the insurance companies set their rates, based on that number and actual number of breaks a given person would have in their "insured life time". This is why I said, no wonder the insurance companies want to kill off obamacare.
    Look at it this way, your fellow workers, all pay say 1000 a month for insurance, forget the co-pays and deductibles, and so on, i have 400 fellow employees, if even two a year break a limb its going to cost ohhh say 8 grand complete. now, i understand that it covers other things as well. but the total take for an insurance company just off of me and my fellow employees is 4,800,000.00 per year. hmmmm ya like i said, there are other costs. I wonder though, just how many 10,000.00 staplers are put to expense each year... hmmm
    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....you just don't get it. The insurance company didn't set that figure for the x-ray and cast....the PROVIDER set that. The insurance company just pays the bill, and yes, their own overhead. I still say that $5-$8,000 example was way over priced. I'd have to see that bill to believe it. And a $1000 per employee for health insurance? Where you getting that rate from? For EE only coverage, with a good plan, how about use a figure of $380 per month per EE? That is an actual rate for a pretty darn good plan. That brings your $4.8 mill down to $1.82 mill. Still a hefty number, but quite a bit lower than your example. However, I see what these people get these days. Down here in the good ole U S of A, it is rare to find an adult not on some type of medication. Some are cheap like my little $5.80 BP medication, but others? It's crazy. And your example is assuming only 2 have a break? Fine....but the others are getting MRI's, CAT SCANS, throw a few cancers in there, maybe a couple of by-pass surgeries....shoot....we haven't even gotten into the rehab for the hurt backs or twisted knees. Oh, and let's not forget medical equipment. I think you'll find the $1.82 million a pretty good deal.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....you just don't get it. The insurance company didn't set that figure for the x-ray and cast....the PROVIDER set that. The insurance company just pays the bill, and yes, their own overhead. I still say that $5-$8,000 example was way over priced. I'd have to see that bill to believe it. And a $1000 per employee for health insurance? Where you getting that rate from? For EE only coverage, with a good plan, how about use a figure of $380 per month per EE? That is an actual rate for a pretty darn good plan. That brings your $4.8 mill down to $1.82 mill. Still a hefty number, but quite a bit lower than your example. However, I see what these people get these days. Down here in the good ole U S of A, it is rare to find an adult not on some type of medication. Some are cheap like my little $5.80 BP medication, but others? It's crazy. And your example is assuming only 2 have a break? Fine....but the others are getting MRI's, CAT SCANS, throw a few cancers in there, maybe a couple of by-pass surgeries....shoot....we haven't even gotten into the rehab for the hurt backs or twisted knees. Oh, and let's not forget medical equipment. I think you'll find the $1.82 million a pretty good deal.
    i DO GET IT. Trust me I do. I compare this whole medical pricing to the Military of damn near any country you can name. 10,000.00 ashtrays anyone? It is viewed as a cash cow. So are you. Think about it, those hospitals, docs, nurses, admin, ceo's look at your wallets/purses as bottomless. Why, easy, its YOUR HEALTH! The people who can not afford insurance are a side bar. You have about 330 million people, of which, anywhere from 30-50 million are not insured. Take the 30 million number you still have 300 million paying prems. Think about that. Do not misunderstand me, I think your system at the moment, sucks. With a little work, it can be made to help everyone.
    What ever happened to the Hippocratic oath doctors take? I am not saying they should not charge, I am saying that 4-5 hundred bucks for a few stitches is totally outrageous.
    Take that same 30 million who are uninsured, what happens if you do get a major outbreak in the states? Something that is really virulent, something that kills. I would suggest, with medical costs the way they are, the frankly uneducated people who are afraid of hospitals and doctors, you are going to have a massive problem. Try explaining to the rest of the world how 30 plus million people died because they didnt have the money for a needle.
    If you think that is out of this world, it was not that long ago really, at the end of the WWI when tens of thousands died of the flu. Smaller population than i grant you, but far more interaction and mingling now than in 1917 and a population that is far far larger.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    i DO GET IT. Trust me I do. I compare this whole medical pricing to the Military of damn near any country you can name. 10,000.00 ashtrays anyone? It is viewed as a cash cow. So are you. Think about it, those hospitals, docs, nurses, admin, ceo's look at your wallets/purses as bottomless. Why, easy, its YOUR HEALTH! The people who can not afford insurance are a side bar. You have about 330 million people, of which, anywhere from 30-50 million are not insured. Take the 30 million number you still have 300 million paying prems. Think about that. Do not misunderstand me, I think your system at the moment, sucks. With a little work, it can be made to help everyone.
    What ever happened to the Hippocratic oath doctors take? I am not saying they should not charge, I am saying that 4-5 hundred bucks for a few stitches is totally outrageous.
    While much of what you are saying has some truth to it, things are not exactly as simple as you make them seem. Those "outrageous" prices that hospitals charge are necessary precisely because they provide so much care to the uninsured, almost $50 million in my hospital alone last year. You want to lower prices and lower your own premiums? Make sure everyone is insured and hospitals don't have to make up their losses to keep their lights on. That's especially true of academic and county hospitals, most of which are non-profit. Having said that, I strongly favor controlling physician reimbursement, with a start by decreasing Medicare reimbursement and decreasing fraud....which this administration has been very successful at doing.

    Additionally, you have been provided some purposefully incorrect information. Insurance companies do NOT simply pay what doctors and hospitals bill. You can start with adding 20% for overhead and 2-6% profit (or much more nowadays) that go directly to the insurance companies, their CEO's and shareholders. Then almost all insurers actually reimburse exactly the same as Medicare; in fact, they usually use Medicare reimbursement as their model. That means that they usually reimburse based on diagnosis-related groups in hospitalized patients, and for other costs they use the term "UCR"...usual, customary and reasonable". Again, this determination is made by the insurer, and not by the provider, and reflects prevailing charges in the community. The statement that insurance companies just pay whatever doctors and hospitals charge is false, and anyone associated with insurance companies knows that.
    They might not mention it, but they know it.
  17.    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    While much of what you are saying has some truth to it, things are not exactly as simple as you make them seem. Those "outrageous" prices that hospitals charge are necessary precisely because they provide so much care to the uninsured, almost $50 million in my hospital alone last year. You want to lower prices and lower your own premiums? Make sure everyone is insured and hospitals don't have to make up their losses to keep their lights on. That's especially true of academic and county hospitals, most of which are non-profit. Having said that, I strongly favor controlling physician reimbursement, with a start by decreasing Medicare reimbursement and decreasing fraud....which this administration has been very successful at doing.

    Additionally, you have been provided some purposefully incorrect information. Insurance companies do NOT simply pay what doctors and hospitals bill. You can start with adding 20% for overhead and 2-6% profit (or much more nowadays) that go directly to the insurance companies, their CEO's and shareholders. Then almost all insurers actually reimburse exactly the same as Medicare; in fact, they usually use Medicare reimbursement as their model. That means that they usually reimburse based on diagnosis-related groups in hospitalized patients, and for other costs they use the term "UCR"...usual, customary and reasonable". Again, this determination is made by the insurer, and not by the provider, and reflects prevailing charges in the community. The statement that insurance companies just pay whatever doctors and hospitals charge is false, and anyone associated with insurance companies knows that.
    They might not mention it, but they know it.
    I think this is directed at me, but if you go back and look at my posts I do say they have to pay their overhead. Go look at my post 3 prior to this one, and I say "The insurance company just pays the bill, and yes, their own overhead." Do you see where I say "their own overhead"?

    As for the statement that insurance companies use "Medicare reimbursement as their model", I'll admit I don't know if that is correct or not. I'll see if I can find something. I know the amount of reimbursement varies from area to area, so does Medicare vary from area to area? I don't know the answer to that, perhaps the good doctor does?

    But, I do stand by my statement that the amount the insurance companies must reimburse is based upon the amount the providers bill the patient. Then, the insurance companies base the premiums they charge policyholders on the amount of reimbursement plus overhead and yes, they do try and make about a 3 - 4% profit. Gulp...that ugly word that the good doctor feels no one should make but doctors and hospitals. However, if providers would charge less for their services, then there is no doubt that premiums would go down. The statment that hospitals charge more for services to make up for "free" care they provide, has some validity. However, that doesn't explain the ridiculous prices charged at the office I went to for my back surgery. They would not let me do anything until either insurance was verified or I paid up front. In fact, when I went for my MRI, bacause I had an HSA plan they required I pay the whole amount up front before I was allowed to step behind the doors to get ready for it. I don't hold that against them, but that means they aren't getting stiffed by anyone on their services.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. #98  
    Fascinating. How can anyone expect their postings about health care financing to have even the slightest amount of validity when they don't understand the most basic aspects of Medicare or private insurance reimbursement? It's a lack of knowledge and overblown opinions based on personal experience and anecdotes that has led to this mess we are in.
    Last edited by davidra; 02/14/2011 at 07:53 AM.
  19.    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Fascinating. How can anyone expect their postings about health care financing to have even the slightest amount of validity when they don't understand the most basic aspects of Medicare or private insurance reimbursement? It's a lack of knowledge and overblown opinions that has led to this mess we are in.
    Once again....the physician on a pedestal comes shining through....only doctors are allowed to have opinions....anyone else have an opinion and they are "overblown." I think this is just another example of why it's hard to take you seriously as you disregard any opinion other than the OPINION that you have. It just gets old...but then....aren't you in your 70s?

    As for me not knowing the Medicare reimbursement amounts....excuse me for not studying up on something that has no bearing on my job. Since I don't help clients with their Medicare claims, I have not had to get into much detail on how they are set. You, on the other hand, would have an interest in that as you likely have an interest in how much the government pays you and other providers. I have never heard that private insurers link their negotiated rates to medicare reimbursements. I've been to many a meeting, and not one time was that mentioned. I can say that many a greedy provider has been kicked out of a network for not being willing to have reasonable rates. It is just another example of how doctors and hospitals don't want to make any sacrifices....just point fingers at the insurance companies who try and negotiate reasonable rates for medical services. For you to deny that providers are up to their neck in all this mess is what is really fascinating.

    So thank you for your typical "up on a pedestal" remarks....how about come back when you can have an open mind.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  20. #100  
    Ultimately health care will be in the hands of the government . That's a promise . It will happen and there is no way to stop it . Right now there are to many peeps that oppose it . But rest assured the next gen. will give control to the government . And by then it might already be a one world government . It's going to happen wether or not we want it to . And if we stop it ..... It will only be for a short time . Just sayin .

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
    ĦṔ-Ḷṫ-Ŧḯη
    Here is a direct link to webOS Doc for all carriers
    http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/...octor_Versions
    P.S. if i have helped you and you are thankful please hit the thanks button to the right---->
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions