Who do you suggest pay for the working man's health care??
I believe the working man already pays for it. Directly though taxes and indirectly through other means. Therefore, I also believe we can set up a system that that covers people with affordable health care that is cost neutral. Unfortunatley, the for profit health insurance industry and their allies (above) are creating a lot of hysteria that is preventing a rational discussion about how to do this.
A recent survey found that over 50% of people report the ONLY reason they stay in their current job is to keep health insurance. How is that good for productivity?
I think it keeps coming back to this.
Look, our employeer based health care system is ANCIENTOUTDATED bullshit. I don't drive a buggywhip to work, so why do I have to be insured like that?
I have some long anecdote here about me recently quitting, moving to a new city sans health insurance, wife keeping her job in City A for benefits, blah, blah, blah. But, really, its just long nonsense. The system is old and broken. Just because it works for Rock doesn't mean it works.
Insurance companies have evolved from providing services and being paid for said services into a greedy, money hungry industry that thrives on increasing profit.
Can you cite the time period where that evolution took place?
From 1666 through 2009.
So it all started with the Great Plague of London?
I can't imagine anyone suggesting that taxpayers should buy someone a luxury item because they spent all their "disposable" cash on health insurance.
So why should we pay for their health insurance so they can afford luxury items.
You're right, this society has become Nikes & Malls and a sense of entitlement amongst many.
As Fatback rightfully pointed out....working folks already pay for health care for the elderly, poor, military, etc.
Who do you suggest pay for the working man's health care??
This is a total strawman. Nobody is suggesting that anyone get FREE health insurance!
Many posts back, I highlighted the relative costs of luxury items versus private health care. The argument for public healthcare is for more affordable option. Not free.
If your argument is "I buy expensive private insurance so everyone else should have to as well", then I simply disagree with you. Healthcare should not be prohibitively expensive. It should be mandatory and it should be affordable. You're answer to this seems to be that people should spend every dollar on expensive, private healthcare before they buy anything else. Well, my argument is that "the working man" should be able to afford healthcare *and* buy himself a new pair of shoes or a cellphone or a drink every once in a while. Or god forbid actually save some money.
The concept of insurance is that every policy holder pays into a pot. Then, when a claim is filed, the insurer draws on the pot to pay out the claim. By your posts, it almost seems as if you believe that your policy premiums pay for your health insurance and nobody else's. But that's not the way it works.
Ideally, a public program would have a lot of policyholders. The premiums are more affordable the bigger the group. That's the concept. All this "free insurance for sneakers and iphones" is just totally reductive and a waste of time.
The word FREE never appears in my post.
I've stated over and over again that if the government can provide cheaper health care, allow me to continue to pay the SAME AMOUNT I'm paying now, assure me the same level of service/care, and then use those "savings" to support a governmental healthcare plan for those who can't pay as much as I do, I'm 1,000% for that.
What I want is a plan that won't INCREASE what I currently pay nor DECREASE the level of Health Care I currently receive.
If that can be shown to me on paper where it appears logical and acheivable, count me in.
Insurance companies have evolved from providing services and being paid for said services into a greedy, money hungry industry that thrives on increasing profit.
Can you cite the time period where that evolution took place?
From 1666 through 2009.
So it all started with the Great Plague of London?
You are going to be forced to take the government plan, unfortunately. It's part of Obama's New Socialism. You will have to wait 2 years to see a doctor, and he will then refer you to a government bureau that will then reassign you to a specialist, who will entrust you to a nurse who will try their best to help you.
You will pay less for YOUR health insurance, but you will pay hundreds of dollars to cover all of those drug dealers, booze hounds, hack-a-lung cancer cases and illegal immigrants.
You'll also have to take re-education classes and twice a month engage in forced community service labor.
You are going to be forced to take the government plan, unfortunately. It's part of Obama's New Socialism. You will have to wait 2 years to see a doctor, and he will then refer you to a government bureau that will then reassign you to a specialist, who will entrust you to a nurse who will try their best to help you.
You will pay less for YOUR health insurance, but you will pay hundreds of dollars to cover all of those drug dealers, booze hounds, hack-a-lung cancer cases and illegal immigrants.
You'll also have to take re-education classes and twice a month engage in forced community service labor.
My child had bacterial and viral meningitis and was in the hospital for 10 days. Had two spinal taps, various tests and ultimately treatment that cured her.
Walking into a hospital and paying this out of my pocket how much would you estimate the bill to be??
And then explain how those costs(sans any insurance company involvement) are going to be reduced.
Will the actual bill be less with a new Health Care plan or will it just be paid for from the universal pot of money?
My child had bacterial and viral meningitis and was in the hospital for 10 days. Had two spinal taps, various tests and ultimately treatment that cured her.
Walking into a hospital and paying this out of my pocket how much would you estimate the bill to be??
And then explain how those costs(sans any insurance company involvement) are going to be reduced.
Will the actual bill be less with a new Health Care plan or will it just be paid for from the universal pot of money?
Well the insurance companies business is to make a profit. If you're not paying for their profit, there's a saving. Also if your Health Care system it's paid for with your taxes and Government controlled, surely they have the power, and interest, in trying to bring down the exorbitant prices of pharmaceutical companies and others in the health care industry. Something the system, as it is now has no interest in doing.
If you're just paying into Health Care through your tax, you'll never see a bill. Well that's how it works over here.
A little comic relief. I find the death-before-taxes approach of the opposition to be humorous.
And then explain how those costs(sans any insurance company involvement) are going to be reduced.
Will the actual bill be less with a new Health Care plan or will it just be paid for from the universal pot of money?
Well MOke more or less nailed it, basically you are taking the profit-making motive out of the equation, bringing down premiums by spreading the risk out over a large group, and hopefully using the government's leverage to influence some of the actual costs of procedures and medications.
It won't come free. I am willing to pay more taxes into the system for this. You aren't. That's a difference of opinion. But the insureds under any government plan would still be paying premiums - you wouldn't be paying for someone else's insurance except for a relatively small tax burden that would be added. Some of the numbers I've seen on Rangel's plan are 1-3% annually, for people making anywhere from $350k/yr upwards - ie, the top 1% of this country.
You're not paying more for YOUR healthcare - it would be to fund the public healthcare option, which you would have the choice to participate in or to stay with your own private insurer.
I'm not sure how this is so confusing.
The 1-3% would be a tax on the incomes of couples making $350k and up. I don't know if you fall into that bracket thus whether the potential tax would apply to you or not; but that's the math that the Rangel plan is using.
I know its long, but it details why a hospital in Texas (!) spends on average 15k per patient per year, while the well-ragarded Mayo Clinic spends less than 6k. And why another Texas hospital, just a hundred miles away from the first one, spends around 10k per patient. Check the article for the reason why, but I'll just say its not because one provides better care, or has better facilities. Read it.
but I have stated(more than once) that 75% of the children born in my local public hospital were to undocumented aliens.....totally different issue.
See this is is the heart of why you are against it (Well it seems to me anyways).
What you tend to disregard is the fact that many of these so call "undocumented aliens" pay money into the system just like everyone else. They might not pay straight up income tax like you want, but they pay taxes when they buy shit, etc. And I'm betting a major portion would be willing to pay their fair share of taxes if they were able. Including taxes for health coverage.
When I lived and worked in the US. I paid not only taxes, but I had to get an SSN. I paid into social security. I'm never going to benefit from that. You will in some way. But I'm not mad.
Part of me thinks tho, you should maybe go talk to someone from your local native tribe and ask them their thoughts on "undocumented aliens". I know that's a whole different topic. I'm just saying...
If the government wants me to subsidize someone else's poor choices...count me out. My neighbor who now has lung cancer and no insurance after smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years.....nope, not paying for him.
Would you have no problem covering your neighbor as long as he followed everything he could do that you suggest but maybe lost his job and coverage and fell on hard times?
That would be pretty noble of you if that was the case.
A few months ago I had surgery for a hernia. It had not ruptured yet. So, there was no need to get it taken care of right away. I honestly didn't mind waiting 2 weeks to get it done. 2 weeks mind you was even through a private clinic. The government still covers payment for private care. If it had ruptured, I would have gone to a hospital and got it taken care of right away.
Here's the deal Rock. I as a Canadian have no problem paying my share of taxes. It includes me and every other single Canadian living in this country. I wouldn't even sweat it much if it included "undocumented aliens" living here (Which it probably does in some way). Because there comes a point when you as a human being should be looking out for others around you. If I was standing on a street corner and I had the serious ability to save some homeless dudes life dying of cancer for 20 or 50 bucks. I would not even second guess myself. I could care less if the guy never paid a dime in his life for me to have coverage. Same as I wouldn't mind if when your child went to the hospital. I would not mind if she was covered in part due to my paying my fair share of taxes for her to be covered.
What you pay now for insurance, would probably be about the same you would pay in taxes for public health coverage. Ya never know. It's might even be less...
I'm not trying to force you in changing your opinion. And I'm glad for you that your insurance has been top notch. I just hope you never have to experience different. Or anyone you care about.
According to the JAMA(Journal Of American Medical Association)there are 225,000 deaths each year, due to medical negligence of some nature....there are an additional 85,000 simple medical malpractice suits filed per year....that's one per every 10 doctors.
Thank you for this.
As you point out there 616 deaths a day due to medical negligence.
Yet only about a third of those end in law suits.
Survivors pay for the poor medical care in the other 2/3 of cases.
This is perhaps a far more important problem than getting each person insured.
To say that doctors are well regulated is a joke. Well regulated industries don't kill 616 people a day.
If drs/hospitals were regulated like the airline industry, and if they took responsibility for their mistakes like the airline industry, there would be very few malpractice suits.
Seriously.....the first penny I spend each month, before I even spend a penny to put food in my familie's mouth is to pay for Health Insurance......been that way for 33 years. Regardless of what else I can spend, health insurance is top priority.
Folks going to concerts, buying luxuries, etc. w/o Health Care is shameful.
If you then have money left over for housing, food and clothes, this is an unremarkable statement.
BUT, if you are saying that some months your family goes with out food or shelter because all the money went to health care I am very impressed.
My child had bacterial and viral meningitis and was in the hospital for 10 days. Had two spinal taps, various tests and ultimately treatment that cured her.
Walking into a hospital and paying this out of my pocket how much would you estimate the bill to be??
And then explain how those costs(sans any insurance company involvement) are going to be reduced.
Will the actual bill be less with a new Health Care plan or will it just be paid for from the universal pot of money?
Rock, here's how it works in all other industrialized countries with national health care policies (and under medicare in our country): The government sets the rate of reimbursement for any given procedure. In Japan, an MRI pays out about $125 dollars. Here it is in the thousands. The discrepancy has to do with the one big difference between our country and others; The medical industry is run by the insurance companies. They set the reimbursement rate and thus direct and prioritize health decision making throughout. Doctors have little or no say in any of this (as they did 40 to 50 years ago when people paid mostly out of pocket). The reason the insurance companies are frightened by the public option is they know that it will drive them out of business very shortly. No one is going to continue paying a %1000 percent mark up on an MRI if a cheaper, quality version is available from the gov't.
But what about quality? Ask your friends including myself who have lived in countries what the health they received is like. I think you might be surprised at the levelof care and its quality. Just one quick story that illustrates a point. I was an exchange student in France in 1987-88. I went back to visit in 2004. My host mother was in recovery from breast cancer treatment. She had spent 10 days in the hospital after surgery. When she went home, they provided her with a health aid to make sure that she was able to properly care for herself because she lived alone. There is no bill for any of this. She lives a very quiet life, with little luxury but she will live a long time (god willing) because she got the best treatment possible.
The simple solution to the health care coverage dilemma is to have the Gov't set the rates and let the capitalists figure out how they want to live within that system. That's what happens in Germany, Japan, Taiwan and most other places. They still have "private" insurers but they have learned to live with a great deal less profit and zero control. Mind you, we're talking about a trillion dollar industry so these companies aren't complaining. Even their regulated slice of the pie is an enormous amount of business. England and a few others have eliminated insurance companies (at least for the masses) all together. This works too but is not necessary here.
I am perplexed at your obsession with monitoring other peoples' behavior. In a giant country like ours there will be those who are greedy and those who are generous. Rather than trying to police everyone (as you seem to be suggesting), let's set up a system that most efficiently gives good treatment to those who will seek it. It will save us untold billions in the end. With some of those billions let's educate (rather than regulate as you suggest) the masses about healthy living and building health infrastructure (safe food chain, detoxifying the environment, etc).
The simple solution to the health care coverage dilemma is to have the Gov't set the rates and let the capitalists figure out how they want to live within that system.
I don't disagree and suggested such earlier....maybe I didn't phrase it properly but I suggested the government should regulate the Insurance companies and certainly what you suggest above is a step towards doing just that.
One of my pet peeves is seeing people who don't have any health coverage yet they own unnecessary items that even I don't have(I don't even own a cell phone, but that's personal preference).
And while I understand your post there is one thing that you can explain to me....
The cost of an MRI in Japan is $125 but because of Insurance companies it's $1,500 here. This makes me think that the Insurance company is paying the Hospital $1,500 for a $125 item.
This doesn't make much sense...the Hospital is making the excessive profit...no?
And the Insurance company is paying out 10X what they should be, so how does that add up to profits for the Insurance company?
If the answer is crooked kickbacks and illegal doings than THAT is the problem and our government should be able to control it(if they want to).
I totally support the government regulating the cost of what a hospital and doctor can charge.
A dr who works for a hospital or clinic gets paid a salary. The hospital or clinic makes a profit from the Dr's labor.
An insurance company employee earns a salary. The insurance company's owners make a profit.
In the 80s I had a growth. I went to a dr who worked for a hospital. He sent me across town for a half day of various imaging at a private imaging clinic. Even though he was not at the imaging clinic, and even though the images showed him nothing he didn't already know, he earned a profit because it turns out, he was an owner of the imaging clinic.
If, we cover everyone in the country we will find major changes for everyone.
Emergency room waits will dramatically drop.
Dr waits will increase. Unless we add more drs at the rate we are adding more patients the wait to see a dr or have a non-emergency procedure will increase.
Some people will pay more, some people will pay less.
To me, it seems, that opposing health care reform because you may pay more, or have to wait longer, is selfish.
Here's a clearer explanation. In Japan the government regulated insurance company will pay a doctor $125 for an MRI. The doctor has to figure out how to make that work for his business.
In the US you or your employer pay a certain sum for insurance that covers some or all of the costs of your health care. Because the Dr and the insurance company are both in the business of making money first and foremost, the doctors have almost zero incentive to use treatment efficiently and the insurance companies have no incentive to keep rates low. This creates a perfect storm of ever increasing gouging and waste by both parties. Because there are almost no limits on what they can charge, they charge ridiculous sums, even for things that are cheap to do. Hence the $1500 MRI. I can't wait to see the bill for my cut that I had treated in the emergency room. I was there for 15 minutes. The washed it and applied dermaglue. I have a $100 deductible on emergency room visits. How much more than $100 dollars do you think I will be charged for that 15 minutes of care.
I am paying close to $11,000 (not including rx and deductibles) a year for my family of 4 because I own a small business. Recently, I was turned down by a cheaper, better insurance provider because I have a pre-existing condition, exercise induced asthma; a condition that I have effectively controlled with a cheap inhaler since I was 14. I could have saved $2000 a year on insurance.
Which leads me to the next point, insurance companies have also become incredibly adept at limiting coverage while increasing the burden on the individual policy holder (see the Moyers video). Since Americans need health care they will pay almost any price to get it. A public system that does not allow for profit making (above a certain small %) or expanding/astronomical salary benefits would totally destroy this system.
The worst part of all of this is my health insurance and treatment isn't even that good. Compared to what my host mother was getting in France it's a joke. Garbage in=Garbage out.
Comments
I believe the working man already pays for it. Directly though taxes and indirectly through other means. Therefore, I also believe we can set up a system that that covers people with affordable health care that is cost neutral. Unfortunatley, the for profit health insurance industry and their allies (above) are creating a lot of hysteria that is preventing a rational discussion about how to do this.
I think it keeps coming back to this.
Look, our employeer based health care system is ANCIENTOUTDATED bullshit. I don't drive a buggywhip to work, so why do I have to be insured like that?
I have some long anecdote here about me recently quitting, moving to a new city sans health insurance, wife keeping her job in City A for benefits, blah, blah, blah. But, really, its just long nonsense. The system is old and broken. Just because it works for Rock doesn't mean it works.
Time for a drastic overhaul.
So it all started with the Great Plague of London?
The word FREE never appears in my post.
I've stated over and over again that if the government can provide cheaper health care, allow me to continue to pay the SAME AMOUNT I'm paying now, assure me the same level of service/care, and then use those "savings" to support a governmental healthcare plan for those who can't pay as much as I do, I'm 1,000% for that.
What I want is a plan that won't INCREASE what I currently pay nor DECREASE the level of Health Care I currently receive.
If that can be shown to me on paper where it appears logical and acheivable, count me in.
Is that even a little bit unreasonable?
That's when insurance companies started, yep.
You will pay less for YOUR health insurance, but you will pay hundreds of dollars to cover all of those drug dealers, booze hounds, hack-a-lung cancer cases and illegal immigrants.
You'll also have to take re-education classes and twice a month engage in forced community service labor.
Uh Huh
You will also pay twice that amount in tax.
Is perfect for make Great Society.
Take the insurance companies out of the mix....
My child had bacterial and viral meningitis and was in the hospital for 10 days. Had two spinal taps, various tests and ultimately treatment that cured her.
Walking into a hospital and paying this out of my pocket how much would you estimate the bill to be??
And then explain how those costs(sans any insurance company involvement) are going to be reduced.
Will the actual bill be less with a new Health Care plan or will it just be paid for from the universal pot of money?
Well the insurance companies business is to make a profit. If you're not paying for their profit, there's a saving.
Also if your Health Care system it's paid for with your taxes and Government controlled, surely they have the power, and interest, in trying to bring down the exorbitant prices of pharmaceutical companies and others in the health care industry. Something the system, as it is now has no interest in doing.
If you're just paying into Health Care through your tax, you'll never see a bill. Well that's how it works over here.
A little comic relief. I find the death-before-taxes approach of the opposition to be humorous.
Well MOke more or less nailed it, basically you are taking the profit-making motive out of the equation, bringing down premiums by spreading the risk out over a large group, and hopefully using the government's leverage to influence some of the actual costs of procedures and medications.
It won't come free. I am willing to pay more taxes into the system for this. You aren't. That's a difference of opinion. But the insureds under any government plan would still be paying premiums - you wouldn't be paying for someone else's insurance except for a relatively small tax burden that would be added. Some of the numbers I've seen on Rangel's plan are 1-3% annually, for people making anywhere from $350k/yr upwards - ie, the top 1% of this country.
Whoaaa...let's do some NYC math here JP.
I said I currently pay $8,000+ a year....I said I was willing to continue to pay that amount.
That amount is more than 3% of my income....so if your figures are correct, I'm willing to pay more than the Rangel plan calls for.
No, I'm not willing to pay more than that and No, I'm not gonna be happy if my health services/benefits decrease.
I'm not sure how this is so confusing.
The 1-3% would be a tax on the incomes of couples making $350k and up. I don't know if you fall into that bracket thus whether the potential tax would apply to you or not; but that's the math that the Rangel plan is using.
I know its long, but it details why a hospital in Texas (!) spends on average 15k per patient per year, while the well-ragarded Mayo Clinic spends less than 6k. And why another Texas hospital, just a hundred miles away from the first one, spends around 10k per patient. Check the article for the reason why, but I'll just say its not because one provides better care, or has better facilities. Read it.
See this is is the heart of why you are against it (Well it seems to me anyways).
What you tend to disregard is the fact that many of these so call "undocumented aliens" pay money into the system just like everyone else. They might not pay straight up income tax like you want, but they pay taxes when they buy shit, etc. And I'm betting a major portion would be willing to pay their fair share of taxes if they were able. Including taxes for health coverage.
When I lived and worked in the US. I paid not only taxes, but I had to get an SSN. I paid into social security. I'm never going to benefit from that. You will in some way. But I'm not mad.
Part of me thinks tho, you should maybe go talk to someone from your local native tribe and ask them their thoughts on "undocumented aliens". I know that's a whole different topic. I'm just saying...
Would you have no problem covering your neighbor as long as he followed everything he could do that you suggest but maybe lost his job and coverage and fell on hard times?
That would be pretty noble of you if that was the case.
A few months ago I had surgery for a hernia. It had not ruptured yet. So, there was no need to get it taken care of right away. I honestly didn't mind waiting 2 weeks to get it done. 2 weeks mind you was even through a private clinic. The government still covers payment for private care. If it had ruptured, I would have gone to a hospital and got it taken care of right away.
Here's the deal Rock. I as a Canadian have no problem paying my share of taxes. It includes me and every other single Canadian living in this country. I wouldn't even sweat it much if it included "undocumented aliens" living here (Which it probably does in some way). Because there comes a point when you as a human being should be looking out for others around you. If I was standing on a street corner and I had the serious ability to save some homeless dudes life dying of cancer for 20 or 50 bucks. I would not even second guess myself. I could care less if the guy never paid a dime in his life for me to have coverage. Same as I wouldn't mind if when your child went to the hospital. I would not mind if she was covered in part due to my paying my fair share of taxes for her to be covered.
What you pay now for insurance, would probably be about the same you would pay in taxes for public health coverage. Ya never know. It's might even be less...
I'm not trying to force you in changing your opinion. And I'm glad for you that your insurance has been top notch. I just hope you never have to experience different. Or anyone you care about.
All the best.
The republicans are the smallest of all the hurdles blocking a health care bill.
Democratic senators on key committees are doing much more to block meaningful legislation than insurance companies, pharma and republicans combined.
Thank you for this.
As you point out there 616 deaths a day due to medical negligence.
Yet only about a third of those end in law suits.
Survivors pay for the poor medical care in the other 2/3 of cases.
This is perhaps a far more important problem than getting each person insured.
To say that doctors are well regulated is a joke.
Well regulated industries don't kill 616 people a day.
If drs/hospitals were regulated like the airline industry, and if they took responsibility for their mistakes like the airline industry, there would be very few malpractice suits.
If you then have money left over for housing, food and clothes, this is an unremarkable statement.
BUT, if you are saying that some months your family goes with out food or shelter because all the money went to health care I am very impressed.
I am printing it out now. Will read when I get a chance. I heard it was required reading for all White House staff.
Rock, here's how it works in all other industrialized countries with national health care policies (and under medicare in our country): The government sets the rate of reimbursement for any given procedure. In Japan, an MRI pays out about $125 dollars. Here it is in the thousands. The discrepancy has to do with the one big difference between our country and others; The medical industry is run by the insurance companies. They set the reimbursement rate and thus direct and prioritize health decision making throughout. Doctors have little or no say in any of this (as they did 40 to 50 years ago when people paid mostly out of pocket). The reason the insurance companies are frightened by the public option is they know that it will drive them out of business very shortly. No one is going to continue paying a %1000 percent mark up on an MRI if a cheaper, quality version is available from the gov't.
But what about quality? Ask your friends including myself who have lived in countries what the health they received is like. I think you might be surprised at the levelof care and its quality. Just one quick story that illustrates a point. I was an exchange student in France in 1987-88. I went back to visit in 2004. My host mother was in recovery from breast cancer treatment. She had spent 10 days in the hospital after surgery. When she went home, they provided her with a health aid to make sure that she was able to properly care for herself because she lived alone. There is no bill for any of this. She lives a very quiet life, with little luxury but she will live a long time (god willing) because she got the best treatment possible.
The simple solution to the health care coverage dilemma is to have the Gov't set the rates and let the capitalists figure out how they want to live within that system. That's what happens in Germany, Japan, Taiwan and most other places. They still have "private" insurers but they have learned to live with a great deal less profit and zero control. Mind you, we're talking about a trillion dollar industry so these companies aren't complaining. Even their regulated slice of the pie is an enormous amount of business. England and a few others have eliminated insurance companies (at least for the masses) all together. This works too but is not necessary here.
I am perplexed at your obsession with monitoring other peoples' behavior. In a giant country like ours there will be those who are greedy and those who are generous. Rather than trying to police everyone (as you seem to be suggesting), let's set up a system that most efficiently gives good treatment to those who will seek it. It will save us untold billions in the end. With some of those billions let's educate (rather than regulate as you suggest) the masses about healthy living and building health infrastructure (safe food chain, detoxifying the environment, etc).
I don't disagree and suggested such earlier....maybe I didn't phrase it properly but I suggested the government should regulate the Insurance companies and certainly what you suggest above is a step towards doing just that.
One of my pet peeves is seeing people who don't have any health coverage yet they own unnecessary items that even I don't have(I don't even own a cell phone, but that's personal preference).
And while I understand your post there is one thing that you can explain to me....
The cost of an MRI in Japan is $125 but because of Insurance companies it's $1,500 here. This makes me think that the Insurance company is paying the Hospital $1,500 for a $125 item.
This doesn't make much sense...the Hospital is making the excessive profit...no?
And the Insurance company is paying out 10X what they should be, so how does that add up to profits for the Insurance company?
If the answer is crooked kickbacks and illegal doings than THAT is the problem and our government should be able to control it(if they want to).
I totally support the government regulating the cost of what a hospital and doctor can charge.
A dr who works for a hospital or clinic gets paid a salary.
The hospital or clinic makes a profit from the Dr's labor.
An insurance company employee earns a salary.
The insurance company's owners make a profit.
In the 80s I had a growth.
I went to a dr who worked for a hospital.
He sent me across town for a half day of various imaging at a private imaging clinic.
Even though he was not at the imaging clinic, and even though the images showed him nothing he didn't already know, he earned a profit because it turns out, he was an owner of the imaging clinic.
Emergency room waits will dramatically drop.
Dr waits will increase.
Unless we add more drs at the rate we are adding more patients the wait to see a dr or have a non-emergency procedure will increase.
Some people will pay more, some people will pay less.
To me, it seems, that opposing health care reform because you may pay more, or have to wait longer, is selfish.
Had lines like this:
Blood Test: $45.00 Amount Allowed: $35.00
Which meant that Kaiser Clinic charged Kaiser insurance $45.00 but Kaiser insurance only paid $35.00.
Fortunately Kaiser Clinic took the hit not me.
In the US you or your employer pay a certain sum for insurance that covers some or all of the costs of your health care. Because the Dr and the insurance company are both in the business of making money first and foremost, the doctors have almost zero incentive to use treatment efficiently and the insurance companies have no incentive to keep rates low. This creates a perfect storm of ever increasing gouging and waste by both parties. Because there are almost no limits on what they can charge, they charge ridiculous sums, even for things that are cheap to do. Hence the $1500 MRI. I can't wait to see the bill for my cut that I had treated in the emergency room. I was there for 15 minutes. The washed it and applied dermaglue. I have a $100 deductible on emergency room visits. How much more than $100 dollars do you think I will be charged for that 15 minutes of care.
I am paying close to $11,000 (not including rx and deductibles) a year for my family of 4 because I own a small business. Recently, I was turned down by a cheaper, better insurance provider because I have a pre-existing condition, exercise induced asthma; a condition that I have effectively controlled with a cheap inhaler since I was 14. I could have saved $2000 a year on insurance.
Which leads me to the next point, insurance companies have also become incredibly adept at limiting coverage while increasing the burden on the individual policy holder (see the Moyers video). Since Americans need health care they will pay almost any price to get it. A public system that does not allow for profit making (above a certain small %) or expanding/astronomical salary benefits would totally destroy this system.
The worst part of all of this is my health insurance and treatment isn't even that good. Compared to what my host mother was getting in France it's a joke. Garbage in=Garbage out.