| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/11/2014 02:21:51 PM · #1 |
| I think that article falls into the "too obvious to be helpful" category. There really are only three categories of expenditures in medicine: paying for doctors, paying for hospitals, and paying for drugs. His conclusion was we spend too much on all three. I'm not sure that's too helpful aside from the anecdote about the hospitals wanting to keep up with each other. Good luck regulating that though... |
|
|
|
04/08/2014 10:36:31 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The population in the USA might be better served if a serious study was done relative to the reasons why costs are so high and work on reducing those.
Ray |
When the ACA was in congress, a Wash Post reporter did a long, fairly well researched article on exactly this topic. About once a year since then, I've looked for it, but it's disappeared into the internet ether.
Anyway, what it said was that the three major reasons that healthcare costs in the US are so much higher here than everywhere else...
* doctors (especially specialists) make about twice as much money as they would in the rest of the industrialized world.
* hospitals, because they compete, must all have the best buildings and latest equipment. Instead of one hospital having some fancy million dollar MRIPETRAHRAH scanner that only a few people really need, all five hospitals do. This means that costs for hospitalization and medical tests and procedures are about twice what they would be otherwise.
* then there's prescription drug costs, which are the highest in the world. By a lot.
Beyond that, there were some other smaller things they found, but the first three things were the bulk of the total. |
|
|
|
04/05/2014 10:58:47 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by AbeSapien2:
... One of the reasons that healthcare costs are so high for all the rest of us and I do not believe it is sustainable in the long run. |
...and as you indicate, it is one of the reasons that costs are so high.
The population in the USA might be better served if a serious study was done relative to the reasons why costs are so high and work on reducing those.
One might think that with some serious streamlining in a variety of non medical processes, a serious reduction in malpractice litigation and a review of other factors that perhaps, just perhaps you could develop a package that all could participate in.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 07:40:49 PM · #4 |
The Hospital writes off the charges out of the operating budget and the person who receives the care does not have to pay anything out of pocket - I do not get to do this personally and yes, it most definitely DOES shift the cost to other taxpayers. In answer to your question,Paul,the CEO at my hospital earns $620K Base Pay Only - not counting any outside perks or benefits.
Thank you, Bear Music for the explanation of CAWEM which stands for Citizen-Alien Waived Emergency Medical. It is meant to cover emergency situations only and it is being very much abused and I see this daily. One of the reasons that healthcare costs are so high for all the rest of us and I do not believe it is sustainable in the long run. |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 02:02:43 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by AbeSapien2:
... At my hospital, we commonly write off charges over $50K ... |
Write off, as in deduct from your income for tax-reporting purposes? I think that would shift at least a percentage of those costs to the rest of us taxpayers.
BTW, how much does the CEO of your hospital make? |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 01:25:25 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
AWESOME. So if I get really sick, my best bet for not going bankrupt is to relinquish my citizenship. |
Nah, cuz you have to met the financial guidelines. FIRST you go broke, THEN you get CAVEM (if you're not a citizen). |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 01:21:47 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Erastus:
I'm rather amazed that this thread hasn't been assigned to the Rant Forum. I suspect had the thread been started by someone with a more conservative philosophy, it would already be in Rant. I've seen such conservative threads moved to Rant in just a few hours. |
That's a good point, actually. It's certainly gotten a tad testy now and then hasn't it? Since I started it (pre-SC days) now I'll move it (new SC powers) :-) |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 01:12:51 PM · #8 |
| I'm rather amazed that this thread hasn't been assigned to the Rant Forum. I suspect had the thread been started by someone with a more conservative philosophy, it would already be in Rant. I've seen such conservative threads moved to Rant in just a few hours. |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 12:38:05 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by AbeSapien2:
Has anyone heard of CAWEM? At my hospital, we commonly write off charges over $50K for one or another patient who has it, even if they are employed. What do you think that does to the healthcare equation? |
Then how do you explain the fact that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is medical debt? |
CAWEM is for non-citizens, legal or otherwise:
"Eligibility Requirements. To qualify for CAWEM, a person must meet all the nonfinancial and financial eligibility requirements for another medical assistance program, except the citizen/alien status and Social Security Number requirements. CAWEM applicants who are not documented (do not have a legal immigration status) are not required to declare or provide proof of their citizenship or immigration status." |
AWESOME. So if I get really sick, my best bet for not going bankrupt is to relinquish my citizenship. |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 10:18:57 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by AbeSapien2:
Has anyone heard of CAWEM? At my hospital, we commonly write off charges over $50K for one or another patient who has it, even if they are employed. What do you think that does to the healthcare equation? |
Then how do you explain the fact that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is medical debt? |
CAWEM is for non-citizens, legal or otherwise:
"Eligibility Requirements. To qualify for CAWEM, a person must meet all the nonfinancial and financial eligibility requirements for another medical assistance program, except the citizen/alien status and Social Security Number requirements. CAWEM applicants who are not documented (do not have a legal immigration status) are not required to declare or provide proof of their citizenship or immigration status." |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 07:24:53 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by AbeSapien2:
Has anyone heard of CAWEM? At my hospital, we commonly write off charges over $50K for one or another patient who has it, even if they are employed. What do you think that does to the healthcare equation? |
Then how do you explain the fact that the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is medical debt? |
|
|
|
04/04/2014 07:22:45 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Usually with the justification that we were "protecting US interests", usually meaning oil. |
everything you touch required oil to manufacture it or deliver it to you. Protecting that is vitally important to the world, not just the US.
this is an age old argument/debate between people that will never be solved until one side is proved wrong by the actions/results of the situation at hand, both the health care and the Military debate in this topic.
We will just have to agree to disagree. |
Yet we'll justify our actions by citing it as a "humanitarian crisis" while we pretend millions aren't being slaughtered in non-oil rich areas.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2014 11:16:49 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by AbeSapien2:
Has anyone heard of CAWEM? At my hospital, we commonly write off charges over $50K for one or another patient who has it, even if they are employed. What do you think that does to the healthcare equation? |
I'm familiar with it. |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 08:58:35 PM · #14 |
| Has anyone heard of CAWEM? At my hospital, we commonly write off charges over $50K for one or another patient who has it, even if they are employed. What do you think that does to the healthcare equation? |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 07:49:13 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
According to Kaiser there are 397,130 active PCPs in the US and according to the DMDC we have 1,369,532 active military personnel. For what? Those two large bodies of water that flank this country does more to protect the US than the military and it's free. |
Muahaha! Complacency is our friend. One day the crusaders will flood down from the Fatherland to bring curling and a polite, indifferent attitude to the infidel! |
We started that years ago with Hockey, now we have strategically penetrated into all areas of your country. Hell, we even managed to convince you to put teams in locations where no one has ever seen ice ;-)
Curling is next!
Then maybe universal health care, although I think curling will be an easier sell.
Message edited by author 2014-04-03 19:50:44. |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 05:42:31 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Good grief... the last military attack on USA based installations occured when?... |
Actually, yesterday, at Fort Hood, Texas ... but it was an inside job ... :-(
I think the previous eney attempt was sometime around 1942, when a Japanese submarine shelled the beach near San Diego. |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 05:26:58 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jab119:
it is better to have a large Military presence and not need it, than to NEED a large Military presence and not have one. |
We'd greatly reduce the chance that we'd need it if we'd quit running around invading other countries and blowing up the locals. |
reducing the US Military presence only opens the door for more attacks. I say pull our Military out and let those guys blow themselves up and de-stabilize that region (whatever region it may be) and screw up the global economy. I'm sure that's what many people want anyway, right?
Its easier to drive the bus when you are not the one behind the wheel. |
Good grief... the last military attack on USA based installations occured when?... When you consider the existing military might of the USA and the capability it has to completely obliterate the globe several times over, one has to wonder just how much more materials you need.
I am most certainly not advocating a complete dismantling of the military, but I doubt that you would overrun by the hordes if you trimmed it a bit.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 03:35:36 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Usually with the justification that we were "protecting US interests", usually meaning oil. |
everything you touch required oil to manufacture it or deliver it to you. Protecting that is vitally important to the world, not just the US. |
Perhaps our 5% of the world's population continuing to hog 30-40% of the world's oil/energy resources has something to do with the attitude so many have toward the US. |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 03:30:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Usually with the justification that we were "protecting US interests", usually meaning oil. |
everything you touch required oil to manufacture it or deliver it to you. Protecting that is vitally important to the world, not just the US.
this is an age old argument/debate between people that will never be solved until one side is proved wrong by the actions/results of the situation at hand, both the health care and the Military debate in this topic.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2014 01:53:57 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jab119:
it is better to have a large Military presence and not need it, than to NEED a large Military presence and not have one. |
We'd greatly reduce the chance that we'd need it if we'd quit running around invading other countries and blowing up the locals. |
reducing the US Military presence only opens the door for more attacks. I say pull our Military out and let those guys blow themselves up and de-stabilize that region (whatever region it may be) and screw up the global economy. I'm sure that's what many people want anyway, right?
Its easier to drive the bus when you are not the one behind the wheel. |
And why do people want to attack the US? It's because for decades, the US policy has long been one of interfering with the affairs of other countries, overtly or covertly and playing the role of "world cop" whether our presence was wanted or not. Usually with the justification that we were "protecting US interests", usually meaning oil.
|
|
|
|
04/03/2014 01:43:38 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Cory, you've repeatedly mentioned good decisions vs. bad decisions. Forgoing health insurance coverage out of some sort of personal protest is an extremely poor decision. With medical debt being the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country, you are essentially lined up now to become a statistic, particularly considering your proclivity to injure yourself. The only person that will be adversely impacted by this is you.
To be blunt, if you cannot afford health insurance while running your own business, you shouldn't be running your own business. Running your own business is a massive pain in the ass, with unpopular and unforeseen costs at every corner. Safeguarding your health and assets should be your top priority, or you're doing it wrong. |
You are somewhat right - but I'm better off this way than unemployed and sucking funds out of the system. (even though it's pretty easy to do). The hope is that eventually I'm no longer busting my ass to just barely make it. (and brother are you EVER right about the costs)
The good news is that I'm only somewhat exposed - the rules do allow me to get coverage now with a preexisting condition, and I can do so at any time if I simply start a new business.
Still, I'm not happy about it since I am exposed in case of injury. So you're right, but I'm not ok with being robbed to have another level of security. FWIW, my entire life I've been uninsured, I'd only bought insurance for myself two years ago, so this is my 'normal'.
Message edited by author 2014-04-03 13:46:02. |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 01:27:10 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by jab119:
Its easier to drive the bus when you are not the one behind the wheel. |
Can you please explain how that works -- it makes no sense to me ... |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 01:20:54 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by jab119:
it is better to have a large Military presence and not need it, than to NEED a large Military presence and not have one. |
We'd greatly reduce the chance that we'd need it if we'd quit running around invading other countries and blowing up the locals. |
reducing the US Military presence only opens the door for more attacks. I say pull our Military out and let those guys blow themselves up and de-stabilize that region (whatever region it may be) and screw up the global economy. I'm sure that's what many people want anyway, right?
Its easier to drive the bus when you are not the one behind the wheel. |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 12:56:11 PM · #24 |
| Adam, when you're out grabbing a cold one and talking life with your friends, do they get impatient while you're googling for cartoons? |
|
|
|
04/03/2014 12:40:22 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jab119:
it is better to have a large Military presence and not need it, than to NEED a large Military presence and not have one. |
We'd greatly reduce the chance that we'd need it if we'd quit running around invading other countries and blowing up the locals. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:40:15 AM EDT.
