The comparison in this context was to your statement about not having to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2308009&postcount=356" as you well know.cristo said:Substantially means nothing, unless you are using a comparison. The UK spends a lot less on healthcare per capita than the US, for example (and has a higher life expectancy...)
Yes, generally, regarding Medicaid it is true. Clearly the eligibility criterion are more complex than my one sentence statement, it includes other things including the size of ones assets, such as a fat bank account or a flashy boat in the backyard. I might have said simply 'poor', but that has such a wide definition that its not useful. Generally speaking:cristo said:Not true:
And in fact Medicaid covers "http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/Jul/08_0153.htm" "cms.hhs.gov said:Medicaid is health insurance that helps many people who can't afford medical care pay for some or all of their medical bills.
cms.hhs.gov said:In general, you should apply for Medicaid if your income is limited and you match one of the descriptions of the Eligibility Groups. (Even if you are not sure whether you qualify, if you or someone in your family needs health care, you should apply for Medicaid and have a qualified caseworker in your state evaluate your situation.)
An able bodied adult male with no dependants will have a hard time qualifying.cms.hhs.gov said:Low-income is only one test for Medicaid eligibility; assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds
How do you know what's on the table? Have you read any of the mark-ups coming out of the various committees? Do you have a crystal ball to see what could emerge as a reconciled bill merging the House's language with the Senate's? Nobody has a clear view of where all this will end up yet, which is why the neo-cons are stirring people up to shout "We don't want it." when they haven't a clue what has come out of committees. One thing for sure - if we don't contain costs and rein in the cost of health-care, the US is headed for economic catastrophe.mheslep said:There remains roughly 3-4% of US citizens that don't qualify for help as destitute but still can't manage to afford access. I'd like to see action taken to get it to them, though not via what's on the table now.
I'm only ~familiar w/ HR3200, as much as I can understand it without running down all the redirections, and with various statements from this or that Senator. There's some good in there, but mainly I think its a mistake. There are other plans I do like, mostly, and have posted about them here.turbo-1 said:How do you know what's on the table? Have you read any of the mark-ups coming out of the various committees? Do you have a crystal ball to see what could emerge as a reconciled bill merging the House's language with the Senate's? Nobody has a clear view of where all this will end up yet, which is why the neo-cons are stirring people up to shout "We don't want it." when they haven't a clue what has come out of committees. One thing for sure - if we don't contain costs and rein in the cost of health-care, the US is headed for economic catastrophe...
turbo-1 said:How do you know what's on the table? Have you read any of the mark-ups coming out of the various committees? Do you have a crystal ball to see what could emerge as a reconciled bill merging the House's language with the Senate's? Nobody has a clear view of where all this will end up yet, which is why the neo-cons are stirring people up to shout "We don't want it." when they haven't a clue what has come out of committees. One thing for sure - if we don't contain costs and rein in the cost of health-care, the US is headed for economic catastrophe.
Reps Bachman and Kline have both come out saying that public insurance would be cheaper. So as true neo-cons, they are against cutting waste and inefficiency, and want to let insurance companies decide who lives or dies.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bachmann-kline-oppose-public-option-because-its-cheaper
Denial of coverage and refusal to pay for covered services are the insurance companies' biggest money-makers. A not-for-profit government-run system would be much better at bringing down costs. Neo-cons know this and have made it an arguing point.WhoWee said:I agree that we need to allow Congress to do their job. However, their first priority should be to address the problems with the existing Government run systems. Instead, the President has pushed for his $600 billion+ "down payment" to restructure health care. Bigger doesn't always mean better - adding to the problem will undoubtedly make it worse.
Next, one of the biggest problems with private health insurance is denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. I'm sure the insurance industry could teach the Government how to design and manage one super-sized risk pool to address this issue. The Government is the only entity that could establish such a pool
do you then follow up with this comment?3thanol said:I have never been to a medical centre in the US, or know enough about the US healthcare system to make a fair comment. Like many Americans making comments about the NHS or other social healthcare you don't know our/there system either to give an un-biased opinion. Each have there problems and many people can pick faults in both...
...yet 100,000's die because of what seems a capitalist healthcare system.
turbo-1 said:Denial of coverage and refusal to pay for covered services are the insurance companies' biggest money-makers. A not-for-profit government-run system would be much better at bringing down costs. Neo-cons know this and have made it an arguing point.
WhoWee said:Turbo,
I honestly don't believe the Government can run anything at a lower cost - it's just not their specialty. If they can fix medicare, medicaid, and social security (without blending it into a bigger program), I'll eat my words.
The reason insurance companies deny pre-existing conditions is because the pre-existing conditions (diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cancer) all lead to other very expensive conditions.
Insurance companies don't insure people who build in flood plains or in wild fire or earthquake areas unless they build the risk into their pricing. Dangerous drivers pay more for car insurance. Insurance companies don't place bad bets. AIG is an example of what happens when they do something risky.
A Government led risk-pool to assist with the associated costs of assuming the risk of pre-existing conditions could solve the problem. By sharing the risk, insurance companies won't risk their ability to pay other claims (and earn profits).
When a region is declared a disaster area due to a natural disaster, the Government steps into help, it's the same basic model. The insurance companies pay their claims and the Government helps the under-insured and un-insured.
mheslep said:Yes, generally, regarding Medicaid it is true.
And in the US if one has no or very little income (<~20k/yr), then they are eligible for government based health care via the Medicaid program as I posted before, and before, and before.
Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups.
Nothing passed by any committee as of yet changes the bulk of the objectionable parts of the proposal. Any attempt by Republicans to amend it so that it doesn't outlaw all insurance plans that aren't part of the new system will fail according to my crystal ball.turbo-1 said:How do you know what's on the table? Have you read any of the mark-ups coming out of the various committees? Do you have a crystal ball to see what could emerge as a reconciled bill merging the House's language with the Senate's? Nobody has a clear view of where all this will end up yet, which is why the neo-cons are stirring people up to shout "We don't want it." when they haven't a clue what has come out of committees.
Unsubstantiated bunk.One thing for sure - if we don't contain costs and rein in the cost of health-care, the US is headed for economic catastrophe.
As has been pointed out to you before, what they actually are saying is that public insurance will be "cheaper" to a consumer because they will pay for 30-40% of the public insurance by taxation whether they choose it or not, then pay the other 60-70% directly for the (subsidized) public insurance. If they choose private insurance, they will pay the premium (100%) plus the 30-40% on top, making the public plan the cheaper choice artificially.Reps Bachman and Kline have both come out saying that public insurance would be cheaper.
This is an outright hateful lie, and you know it. Forum rules can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181So as true neo-cons, they are against cutting waste and inefficiency, and want to let insurance companies decide who lives or dies.
Despite the ability of vaccines to prevent illness and death, our current system of vaccine financing has resulted in a gap for underinsured children. Current trends in health insurance products, including enrollment in high-deductible health plans that may or may not provide immunizations or other preventive benefits before a high deductible has been met, are likely to increase the magnitude of this gap and must be carefully monitored. Furthermore, the impact of the gap in vaccine financing for underinsured children on vaccination rates deserves further study once data on coverage rates for new vaccines become available. Evidence from past studies supports the premise that the availability of financing affects immunization rates.11, 21 Meanwhile, strategies are needed to address the current needs of underinsured children and should include efforts to enhance immunization benefits through requirements or incentives for insurers and employers. Until such enhancements in private insurance coverage for immunization are implemented, however, support of the public sector safety net is critical to ensure the protection of this vulnerable group of children in the United States.
turbo-1 said:It's not an outright hateful lie. I only wish it were not true. Right now, if you own a small business and offer health insurance to your employees and one of your employees comes down with a catastrophic illness the insurance company will either jack up your rates or refuse to renew your policy. If you have been paying for private coverage for years and you come down with a catastrophic illness, it's likely that your insurance company will drop you on some pretext to avoid paying for your care. This is the status quo, and this is the system that the GOP wants to perpetuate. We can speculate about their motivations, but the end result is the same.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/13/oh-those-death-panels/
Those costs do not magically go away -- they are just going to be passed on in the form of "taxes" rather than in the form of "higher charges".turbo-1 said:For-profit hospitals and medical practices do not simply "eat" those costs - they pass them on in the form of higher charges. ... If we had a public health insurance option, this situation could be resolved, resulting in more reasonable charges for procedures.
turbo-1 said:If we had a public health insurance option, this situation could be resolved, resulting in more reasonable charges for procedures. Also, as WhoWee pointed out, giving the currently uninsured/underinsured access to preventative health care should help resolve potential health problems before they become more serious and require more expensive interventions. There are some potentially huge improvements in efficiency and cost-containment that could be brought about by a well-crafted reform bill. It's a shame that most of the GOP in Congress can't bring themselves to participate, because simple nay-saying and obstruction will not result in the best possible bill.
WhoWee said:Insurance companies and health care networks operate at a profit. Their operations are efficient.
Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice
insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted
than they would be otherwise. But even large savings
in premiums can have only a small direct impact on
health care spending—private or governmental—because
malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that
spending.3 Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects
of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent
to which physicians practice “defensive medicine” by conducting
excessive procedures; preventing widespread
problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing
medical injuries. However, evidence for those other
effects is weak or inconclusive.
My point is that we already pay these costs in the current system, in the form of higher fees for service. Hospitals and medical practices pad their fees because they know that they are going to have to treat the uninsured and need to keep their profits up. With the recent job-losses, many more people are losing insurance coverage, and that will place additional pressure on ERs, etc.Hurkyl said:Those costs do not magically go away -- they are just going to be passed on in the form of "taxes" rather than in the form of "higher charges".
gravenewworld said:Emotions say tort reform would save a lot of money, but the facts (or lack thereof) so far say otherwise:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc4968/01-08-MedicalMalpractice.pdf
WhoWee said:The cost isn't just from lawsuits.
The hidden costs often include ordering extra tests to cover the doctor and hospital. Medicine has come a long way from ancient times. Doctors have a difficult job and are often forced to make fast decisions. Their priority should be in saving the patients, not shielding themselves from litigation.
I believe that doctors should be held accountable, but there needs to be reasonable limits and expectations.
Evidence from the states indicates that premiums for malpractice
insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted
than they would be otherwise. But even large savings
in premiums can have only a small direct impact on
health care spending—private or governmental—because
malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that
spending.3 Advocates or opponents cite other possible effects
of limiting tort liability, such as reducing the extent
to which physicians practice “defensive medicine” by conducting
excessive procedures; preventing widespread
problems of access to health care; or conversely, increasing
medical injuries. However, evidence for those other
effects is weak or inconclusive.
gravenewworld said:Maybe I need to REPOST with bolded words. Try reading the PDF this time before posting please.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc4968/01-08-MedicalMalpractice.pdf
States that have enacted forms tort reform still haven't seen their health costs go down significantly. Why?
WhoWee said:I read your post and I deal with this issue daily.
Maybe you need to post the specifics of their reforms in bold. Perhaps their reforms were not adequate or focused?
Perhaps the trial lawyers helped draft the reforms?
Effects on Defensive Medicine
Proponents of limiting malpractice liability have argued
that much greater savings in health care costs would be
possible through reductions in the practice of defensive
medicine. However, some so-called defensive medicine
may be motivated less by liability concerns than by the
income it generates for physicians or by the positive (albeit
small) benefits to patients. On the basis of existingstudies and its own research, CBO believes that savingsfrom reducing defensive medicine would be very small.
A comprehensive study using 1984 data from the state of
New York did not find a strong relationship between the
threat of litigation and medical costs, even though physicians
reported that their practices had been affected by
the threat of lawsuits.14 More recently, some researchers
observed reductions in health care spending correlated
with changes in tort law, but their studies were based on a
narrow part of the population and considered spending
for only a few ailments. One study analyzed the impact of
tort limits on Medicare hospital spending for patients
who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction
or ischemic heart disease; it observed a significant
decline in spending in states that had enacted certain tort
restrictions.15 Other research examined the effect of tort
limits on the proportion of births by cesarean section. It
also found savings in states with tort limits, though of a
much smaller magnitude.16
However, when CBO applied the methods used in the
study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of
heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence
that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical
spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO
found no statistically significant difference in per capita
health care spending between states with and without
limits on malpractice torts. Still, the question of whether
such limits reduce spending remains open, and CBO
continues to explore it using other research methods.
gravenewworld said:This CBO report here probably will answer a lot of questions you have, it's kind of long but worth the read:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5549/Report.pdf
The evidence that tort reform would have a significant impact on defensive medicine has been weak so far. Who says doctors aren't ordering more tests simply to line their own pockets?
Doctors who own diagnostic equipment or who own a share of a local hospital can certainly drive up costs in the quest for profit. You might be surprised to learn, though, that some of the "unnecessary" diagnostic testing is done to satisfy the insurance companies. If a doctor performs a procedure on a patient without jumping through all the insurance companies' hoops, the claim will be denied. Each insurance company has its own requirements, and if the doctor has not provided the specific diagnostic evidence they require, they will not pay for the treatment. Insurance companies drive up the administrative costs in medical practices and hospitals and actually foster more spending on diagnostic testing than one might expect.gravenewworld said:The evidence that tort reform would have a significant impact on defensive medicine has been weak so far. Who says doctors aren't ordering more tests simply to line their own pockets?
turbo-1 said:Doctors who own diagnostic equipment or who own a share of a local hospital can certainly drive up costs in the quest for profit. You might be surprised to learn, though, that some of the "unnecessary" diagnostic testing is done to satisfy the insurance companies. If a doctor performs a procedure on a patient without jumping through all the insurance companies' hoops, the claim will be denied. Each insurance company has its own requirements, and if the doctor has not provided the specific diagnostic evidence they require, they will not pay for the treatment. Insurance companies drive up the administrative costs in medical practices and hospitals and actually foster more spending on diagnostic testing than one might expect.
Count Iblis said:
sylas said:See, for example, one rather extreme example: http://news.independentminds.livejournal.com/3753821.html?thread=22834525#t22834525 . This comment represents what is sometimes taken as a convenient caricature of the USAmerican by some of us in other countries.
We Americans have empathy with our friends in England, and think that it is wrong of your government to CENSURE englander's FREE SPEECH. SPEECH CODES ARE SIMPLY WRONG. WE MUST ALLOW ALL TYPES OF SPEECH, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE LABELED AS "HATE SPEECH", in order to hear ALL ideas period.
The main source of TRUTH in our media right now is FOX NEWS CHANNEL period.